|
Thursday, July 2. 2009
Richard F. Hokenson (www.hokenson.biz) reports that Americans are still retiring. Despite the dramatic declines in the 401K's of retirees, almost 500,000 men and women over 65 left the work force in 2008 according to Mr. Hokenson in his recent article Americans are Still Retiring. He concludes that retirement patterns have not changed significantly over the last 15 years, rather they reflect a persistent and steady increase in the number of people over 65 in the work force. This pattern began in the "go-go" years of the 1990 rather than in response to the dramatically diminished retirement resources resulting from the recent economic reversals. There has been an increase in work force participation among all age groups over 65 and among both sexes since 1990. Mr. Hokenson argues that some retirees want to continue working even though the cost of retirement is not an issue. The changing nature of work from manual and physical labor mean that fewer people wear out by 65. In addition, the growing evidence that "use it or lose it" encourages people to continue working rather than embracing a sedentary life which may lead to loss of both physical and mental abilities. Mr. Hokenson also attributes the increase in labor force participation rates among those over 65 to the changing marital patterns, with an increase in single households due to an increasing number of never-married people, the growing divorce rate and the death of a spouse.
Tuesday, May 12. 2009
Immigration is back on the policy agenda. Early in April, the White House again signaled the President's intention to re-start the immigration debate. Conceding that the issue is politically controversial, Obama is nevertheless quoted as saying ‘those who are long time residents but lack legal status "have to have some mechanism over time to get out of the shadows."' (New York Times, 4/9/09) The Pew Hispanic Center's recent study, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, by Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, provides a starting point for the debate. Based on data primarily from the Census Bureau's March 2008 Current Population Surveys, the study estimates that unauthorized immigrants are 4% of the country's population and make up 5.4% of the workforce. Growth in the number of illegal workers, which accelerated in 2003, has slowed, however, with 2008 estimates not significantly different from those in 2007. Contrary to past patterns, illegal immigrants are now widely dispersed across the nation. States in the southeast, in particular, including Georgia and North Carolina, have seen a rapid increase in the number of undocumented workers in their labor force, while California, which still has the largest number of undocumented workers (2.7 million), saw its share of the illegal worker population fall from 42% in 1990 to 22% in 2008. Nearly half of these immigrant households are families with children. (By contrast, only about a fifth of U.S. born households and slightly more than a third of legal immigrant households are couples with children.) The children of unauthorized immigrants whether lacking legal status themselves or U.S. citizens are 6.8% of enrollment in elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. Hispanics continue to account for about three quarters (76%) of illegal immigrants. More than half of these are from Mexico. Asians are 11% of unauthorized immigrants: a mere 2% are from the Middle East.
Monday, April 20. 2009
“20th Century Generations”, a Population Reference Bureau (www.prb.org) publication by Elwood Carlson melds a demographic concept “cohorts” with political and historical events in our nation’s history. Building on work by Ryder, Straus and Howell and Easterly, Carlson identifies “seven public generations” of the 20th century. These generations are defined by strong historical and political boundaries.
We are all familiar with the Baby Boom generation (born 1946-1964) and the Good Warriors who are also known by Tom Brokow’s The Greatest Generation (1909-1928). But who has heard of The Lucky Few (1928-1945), the smaller generation before the Baby Boomers who experienced the expansive economic times of the 50’s and 60’s but were able to avoid, in large parte, the three major wars that occurred during the 20th Century.
While we are aware of the life experiences of Generation X (1965-1982), the smaller cohort following the Baby Boomers, we know less about the New Boomers (1982-2001) because they are providing only a few hints about their life course. This group is almost as large as the original Baby Boomers and will be the largest generation in the 21st century.
However, the New Boomers have share common experiences with the first generation of the 20th Century, the New Worlders (1871-1889). About one in four people in this generation immigrated to the United States and the New Boomers can expect to add more immigrants during adulthood than the previous five generation. The New Boomers may also have a great deal in common with the Hard Timers (1890-1908) who fought in World War I and struggled through the Great Depression. Many of the New Boomers are entering the work force just as our nation experiences one of the most severe economic downturns in 50 years.
This bulletin contrasts the experience of each generation through childhood with a rapid decline in infant mortality, the rise of mass education, the changing role of family and women in the work force. It is an excellent summary of our changing nation viewed through the generations that lived it. Much can be learned from reading the bulletin which can be found at the PRB web site. (www.prb.org)
Monday, April 20. 2009
The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, announced last week (New York Times -4-08-09 www.nyt.com) that he was opening an office to oversee the 2010 Census in New York. New York is currently the only city to have a special office dedicated to the Census. Chicago and Los Angles traditionally have had aggressive programs to increase the response rate but not a special office. Mayor Bloomberg is “on to the Census." The New York 2010 Census office has two functions... (1) to ensure that all addresses are identified so that the household will receive the 2010 Census form and (2) educate all residents (legal or not) about the importance of completing the Census when it arrives in the mail in March 2010. In 2000 only 55% of city residents returned the census form by mail compared to 67% of the nation. Residents are missed because not all of the people in the household are reported or because the Census Bureau does not know that the household exits and does not follow-up when a census form is not returned. After 2000, the New York City Planning Department is credited with identifying 150,000 apartments or houses that were home to 350,000 people. These people would have been missed without the extraordinary efforts of the Planning Department. The Mayor understands the political and fiscal stakes of the 2010 Census. Reapportionment at the national, state and local level after each census is one of the most radical redistribution of power that occurs. Every ten years the House of Representatives, every state legislature, county government and many municipalities have to redraw their political boundaries based on the findings of the Census. And this redistribution of power occurs peacefully... a lot of heated rhetoric but the redrawing of districts occurs.
And Mayor Bloomberg gets it. He is ensuring that New York City will probably increase its power within the federal delegation and in Albany. He is also ensuring that New York City will get its fair share of federal and state financial support. Current projections are that New York State may lose 2 or 3 seats in the national reapportionment but if New York City aggressively educates their citizens to complete the 2010 census form, the most of New York State's losses will be borne by upstate New York. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for believing in the power of the census.
Tuesday, March 24. 2009
A recent article in New York Times has highlighted the LGBT community’s ongoing struggle to legally recognize same-sex couples in the 2010 Census and other federal surveys. The U.S. Census Bureau plans to edit the 2010 Census responses of same-sex couples who are legally married in California, Massachusetts or any other state. The Bureau is responding to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates that have been recently proposed. The LGBT community will be reported as "unmarried partners,'' rather than married spouses, in census tabulations. The Census Bureau is required by the Constitution to conduct an inclusive count of the nation's residents every 10 years. The Census Bureau does not ask about sexual orientation, but it does ask people to describe their relationships to others in their household. If a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as their "husband/wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will automatically assign them to the "unmarried partner" category. Legally married same-sex couples will be indistinguishable in census data from those who chose "unmarried partner" to describe their relationship. According to Martin O'Connell, chief of the Census Bureau's Fertility and Family Statistics Branch "This has been a question we've been looking at for quite a long time.”It's not something the bureau could arbitrarily or casually decide to change on a whim, because our data is used by virtually every federal agency."
A report by David M. Smith and Gary Gates of the Urban Institute states:
To date, the U.S. Census Bureau has only released counts of gay and lesbian coupled households, but as more information is released, we will be able to determine the number of children living in these households, income, racial profile, home ownership and other important demographics. These facts will help us dispel stereotypes and present a fuller, more accurate picture of the gay and lesbian family in America Even though the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households; 1,202,418 gay and lesbian partners in committed relationships, were counted. Urban Institute’s key report findings may provide a different dynamic to conventional marriage to policy makers: • 601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families and 297,061 lesbian families.
• In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 145,130 total gay and lesbian families. 81,343 male, and 63,787 female. The 2000 numbers represent a 314 percent increase.
• Gay and lesbian families live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States compared to 1990 when gay and lesbian families reported living in 52 percent of all counties. In 2000, only 22 of the 3,219 counties in the United States reported.
• The Human Rights Campaign estimates that the 2000 U.S. Census count of gay and lesbian families could be undercounted as much as 62 percent. According to O'Connell,
“We're not destroying data; we are keeping that data,". "We are just showing the data published in a way that is consistent with the way every other agency publishes their data." Any way the Bureau plans to handle counting gays in future census’ is vague at this point. P
Tuesday, March 17. 2009
 Last week, I listened to Dr. Jane Goodall as part of the Wilson Center’s “On the Hill” series. While Dr. Goodall is known primarily for her groundbreaking work on chimpanzee behavior in the Gombe Reserve of Tanzania, her discussion focused on the linkages between environmental sustainability, public health, livelihoods development, and the well-being of species.
Dr. Goodall focused her presentation on TACARE, a flagship program of the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education, and Conservation. TACARE – or the Lake Tanganyika Catchment Reforestation and Education program -- is an integrated international development program. While leaders in the population studies have yet to determine direct relationships between growth and climate change, Dr. Goodall stated her observations that increasing populations have led to further environmental degradation. As a result, she advocates for localized, integrated solutions. By combining culturally-sensitive conservation techniques with economically sustainable practices and reproductive health services, the Jane Goodall Institute has achieved tremendous success in restoring indigenous forests, stabilizing population growth, and establishing primate well-being. TACARE programs provide microfinance opportunities, infrastructure development funds, tree nurseries, forest reserves, cash crop promotions, water sanitation, public health education, and youth education through JGI’s Roots & Shoots program. Regarding the role of family planning services, the field staff of the Jane Goodall Institute provides counseling and distributes condoms, oral contraceptives, voluntary sterilization, IUCD, Depo-Provera, and natural methods. Dr. Goodall outlined that when these items were introduced to local communities, men and women welcomed them. However, greater efforts are needed in various African countries, particularly in Uganda, where an average 6.7 children are born to every female of reproductive age. TACARE is currently funded through the US Agency for International Development. Dr. Goodall optimistically stated that under the current administration, she hopes that development funding agencies will enable NGOs to exercise greater judgement in implementation practices. Rather than having one fund earmarked solely for HIV/AIDS education, Dr. Goodall mentioned the need for development grants to tackle integrated practice at a scaled level. For more information on the Jane Goodall Institute’s work, visit www.janegoodall.org
Friday, February 13. 2009
After an exciting week of collaboration with CARE USA, the Population Resource Center is excited to enter a new phase of its development. Robert J. Walker, former President of PRC, began his new role as Executive Vice President of the Population Institute this week. In his place, founder and former President Jane DeLung shall serve as President. We are excited for the new opportunities offered to Bob, and we welcome Jane's return to PRC.
Monday, February 2. 2009
Putting Names to Faces Aborigines to bear the brunt of climate change Heightened fears for lowering lands Paradise Lost: When climate change leaves millions without a home With headlines like these appearing in global newspapers, the effects of climate change are hitting home – literally. While the 111th Congress is expected to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40+ years, media coverage illustrates immediate challenges facing some populations. When Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed announced last November that he planned to invest part of the country’s tourism revenues in securing another homeland for future environmental refugees, climate change suddenly became painfully tangible. The fact that people around the world may lose their homes and livelihoods to sea level changes is for many organizations, a human rights issue. For some, however, the phenomenon of climate migration may seem far-fetched. Is this really happening? How many people are being affected? Have people already been displaced due to global warming? How many people will be displaced by a slight change in sea level? Where are they located and where are they migrating to? What policy options exist to address climate migration, mitigation and adaptation? Below, I’ve compiled a short series of facts and recommendations on environmental displacement. How many are being affected? A 2007 World Bank study identified the relationships between sea level rise (SLR) and its impact on population, and geography. This study does not provide a timescale for SLR, but it does project the percentage of individuals who will be adversely affected by SLR. The effects of sea level rise (SLR), one result of climate change, differ across the globe. Using 2008 population estimates, one can calculate that a one meter SLR could affect 3.3 million citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean while a five meter SLR potentially impacts 15.5 million people in the same region. In the Middle East & North Africa and East Asia, a SLR of one meter is projected to affect 31.7 million people while a five meter SLR could uproot up to 36 million residents. In South Asia, one of the most populous regions of the world, a one meter SLR could negatively affect 5.8 million people while a five meter SLR could harm as many as 39 million individuals. How will they be affected? The shifting of the Earth’s temperature increases vulnerability to natural disaster; food, air, and energy security; the ability to sustain livelihoods, and the establishment of permanent residences. As a result of unmitigated climate change in the most vulnerable developing countries, agricultural production will likely decline. Less reliable rainfall will impact planting seasons, crop growth and livestock health. Flooding will further diminish the quality of already-marginal soil and cause outbreaks of water-borne diseases such as cholera and dysentery. Longer dry seasons will take a serious toll. Ongoing population growth, with its increased demand for irrigation and industrial development, will continue to compound the crisis. Where are they located? A CARE/UNOCHA 2008 analysis identified Sahelian Africa, the Horn of Africa, Central Africa, Central and South Asia, and Southeast Asia to be particularly vulnerable to disaster in the next 2-3 decades. When overlaying hazard hotspots to areas of high population density, the coastal and mountainous regions of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Burma, Laos, Indonesia, and China exhibit the greatest risk of disaster to the largest populations of people. When the relationship between risk to drought and presence of sociopolitical conflict is examined, countries in Central and East Africa, Central and South Asia, and Southeast Asia are shown to be at higher risk for climate-induced conflict. What policy options are under consideration? Policy recommendations espoused by CARE include - reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale in order to avoid shooting past any safe emissions scenario and committing future generations to a very different and more dangerous world;
- investing in emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction;
- helping people get back on their feet after an emergency has been tackled;,
- supporting interventions that address underlying causes of vulnerability, such as detrimental policies and poor governance, social discrimination and degraded ecosystems;
- scaling up funding for adaptation in developing countries; and
- ensuring that adaptation funding reaches the most vulnerable people, which will require systematic identification of socio-economically vulnerable groups; inclusive, participatory and transparent decision making on the design and implementation of adaptation activities; and mechanisms to support community-based adaptation.
In a 2008 presentation by Oliver-Smith, recommended policy considerations include recognizing the legal and economic rights of displaced persons; climate change mitigation and adaptation; the monitoring of areas projected to be affected by SLR; and educating and training resettlement practitioners. 
If you are interested in learning more about climate displacement and disaster risks, come join PRC and CARE USA at our upcoming briefing featuring Alex de Sherbinin (CIESIN), Christina Chan (CARE USA), and Cynthia Awuor (CARE International). Disaster and Displacement: The Human Face of Climate Change Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2200 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 2:00pm-3:30pm
Wednesday, January 28. 2009
In assessing America's energy future, it's impossible to ignore the role that projected population growth and population distribution will play. U.S. population, currently 306 million, is projected to rise to 373 million by 2030 and to 438 million by 2050, with much of that growth expected to occur in the West and the South. Currently, the United States is the world's leading consumer of oil at 20.6 million barrels per day and the second highest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Given U.S. population projections and consumption patterns, how realistic is it to talk of eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil in the next few decades or reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050? That was the topic of a Capitol Hill roundtable that the Pension Rights Center hosted on January 13, 2009, and the answers were sobering, if not alarming, particularly with respect to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Jeff Stewart, the Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, gave a PowerPoint presentation that showed U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, given current population and consumption patterns, are expected to increase by 25% to 8 Gt (gigatons) per year by 2030, and by 2050, population growth drives projected carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 9.19 Gt per year. Stewart's analysis indicated that to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, as many have suggested, would require revolutionary changes to each energy producing and end use sector. In one scenario he illustrated the magnitude of changes that would need to take place, doubling auto efficiency and mpg, vastly improved power plant efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all coal-fired plants, tripling the number of nuclear power plants to 300, capturing the equivalent of the entire wind energy potential of North Dakota, and a massive conversion of automobiles to hydrogen fuel. On the question of U.S energy dependence, Paul Holtberg, representing the Energy Information Agency, unveiled the government's latest revised energy projections for 2030. According to EIA's latest forecast, even with a very substantial increase in biofuels, the U.S. will remain heavily dependent on foreign oil by 2030, with foreign oil still providing 41 percent of our total liquid fuel consumption. Robert Hirsch, a "peak oil" expert with MISI, painted an even more alarming picture of America's energy future, suggesting that global oil production has peaked, or will soon peak at about 87 million barrels per day and will begin, in a few years, a gradual decline of up five percent a year. If Hirsch's peak oil analysis is even close to being accurate, it suggests that America's energy future is substantially bleaker than the government estimates provided by EIA and it increases the challenge faced by lawmakers as they attempt to meet the energy needs of an expanding U.S. population. Another presenter, Robert Gramlich of the American Wind Energy Association, suggested that wind could make a major contribution to meeting future U.S. energy needs, but realizing the potential of wind energy will require more than windmills. Much of the wind power that will be generated in the decades ahead will occur in rural parts of the West, far from the fast growing urban centers in places like California, Arizona, and Florida. To make use of wind power, America will have to make a major investment in new transmission lines to get the power to where it needs to go. Nate Gorence, of the National Commission on Energy Policy, gave the audience an overview of the energy legislation likely to be debated in the new Congress, everything from new fuel economy standards, to energy tax subsidies, to investments in "green energy" technology. If Members of Congress do nothing else in this Congress but debate and act on energy-related legislation, it looks like it could be a very full legislative calendar. That makes it all the more imperative that Members of Congress look down the barrel of America's energy future before proceeding any further. It's not an encouraging picture. [For each of the presenters at our January 13, 2009 energy roundtable, PowerPoint presentations are available].
Tuesday, January 27. 2009
On February 11, I will join my CARE colleague, Cynthia Awuor, and demographers Alex de Sherbinin and Susana Adamo to give a briefing on Capitol Hill about the human face of climate change. I am looking forward to the opportunity to help members of Congress and their staff better understand not only the challenge we face, but also how policymakers can address this challenge and how humanitarian organizations are already adapting the way we do business in light of the realities of climate change. Until recently, climate change science has been, for the most part, defined by top-down, model- and climate-scenario based impact assessments, which attempt to project the expected level of impact of unmitigated climate change on human and ecological systems using biophysical indicators, such as water stress, agricultural output, and infectious disease distribution. Very few studies to date have looked at biophysical risk together with social, economic, and political vulnerability. The most climate change insecure populations will be those with the highest biophysical risks and the greatest social, economic, and political vulnerability. Take Zimbabwe for example. The country is prone to climate-related hazards, such as droughts and cyclones. It will likely experience water scarcity and a decline in agricultural production as a result of climate change. On top of these biophysical risks, however, Zimbabwe is also currently dealing with political and financial crises as well as an HIV/AIDS crisis. The HIV/AIDS crisis alone has left many women widowed and struggling to survive. And because they are women, they do not by law have access to land tenure, they have been excluded from disaster risk reduction efforts, and they have not benefited from improved agricultural technologies and water resource management techniques. Their livelihoods will become even more insecure in the face of climate change. At the briefing, which is being co-sponsored by the Population Resource Center, I will present a report CARE and UNOCHA released last year on the humanitarian implications of climate change. The report is exciting because it does something new. It lays existing data about social, economic and political vulnerability on top of climate projection data about specific hazards associated with climate change – floods, cyclones and drought. When we look at social, economic and political vulnerability together with climate projection data, we can begin to more carefully identify and pinpoint hotspots of high humanitarian risk under changing climate conditions. And this helps us target our resources more effectively – to those who need it most. In the end, though, what matters most is not the climate models, projections and reports. What really matters is how people in the world’s poorest communities, who already struggle to survive without having to deal with the harsh realities of climate change, are affected by and facing this new challenge – in concrete and real life terms. My CARE colleague, Cynthia, a native of Kenya, will help put a human face on climate change by talking about what she is seeing and hearing, on the ground, about the impact of climate change on people living in extreme poverty. Together we hope to expand members’ and staff’s view of the impact of climate change to include its dire consequences on the world’s most vulnerable people. We look forward to a fruitful discussion about how we can work together – as policymakers, NGOs, and local communities – to face and overcome the humanitarian challenge of climate change. For Members of Congress and staff who want to learn more about the specific humanitarian impacts of climate change in these regions – and about how CARE is using the findings from this report to change the way we plan and do our business – please join us on February 11. The CARE/UNOCHA report on the humanitarian implications of climate change is also available on our CARE climate change website: www.careclimatechange.org. To learn more about CARE and the work we do more broadly around the world, visit www.care.org. 
Christina Chan currently serves as Senior Policy Analyst for CARE USA.
Wednesday, January 21. 2009
The swearing-in yesterday of President Obama signals, no doubt, a major shift in U.S. policy on international family planning. It's widely believed that the President will act swiftly to repeal the Mexico City "gag rule" that was re-imposed by President George W. Bush eight years ago. Less certain is what the Administration will do with respect to funding for U.S. international family planning assistance. As a Senator last year, Obama supported efforts to boost funding to $1 billion in FY 2009, up sharply from the $450 million appropriated in FY 2008. Based upon his prior support for international family planning assistance, it's been widely anticipated that the new Administration would support a major boost in funding in the FY2010 budget. But with a ballooning federal deficit and an urgent need for economic stimuli, it's possible that family planning could be accorded a lower than expected priority. Last week, however, five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a strong appeal for increased U.S. support for international family planning. Noting that U.S. support for family planning has diminished, in real dollar terms, since 1995, they released a report ("Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance") that argued that it is time to "reverse the decline." After noting that USAID over the past four decades has been a "leader in efforts to both improve maternal and child health around the world and reduce high population growth rates," the authors recommended a "FY 2010 appropriation of $1.205 billion for international family planning assistance, rising gradually to $1.5 billion by 2014." The report also urged the Obama Administration to "reassert U.S. leadership in family planning" and work more closely with UNFPA and other international agencies. Support from the five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program (J. Joseph Speidel, (1978-83), Steven Sinding (1983-86), Duff Gillespie (1986-93), Elizabeth Maguire (1993-99), and Margaret Neuse (2000-06)) is expected to bolster Congressional support for international family planning assistance. The authors argued that USAID continues to have a "technically strong core of professionals" and the capacity to rapidly scale up its operations. Later this year, the Population Resource Center will be conducting a series of briefings for Congress on the status of U.S. support for international family planning assistance. The briefings will look at this report and others that have attempted to quantify the unmet demand in developing countries for modern methods of birth control.
Tuesday, January 20. 2009
A study ("Does Watching Sex on Television Predict Teen Pregnancy? Findings from a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth") released recently by the RAND Corporation reports an increasing correlation with exposure to sexual content on television and sexual attitudes and behavior in today’s youth. Shows like Gossip Girl, The Hills, and 90210, which are targeted to young men and women; may help create the perception that there is little risk to engaging in sex without the use of contraceptives. Television’s casual portrayal of sex may create new social mores and may influence reproductive health outcomes. Most importantly, the study showed a link to teen pregnancy. According to the report
“Of the 718 boys and girls who said they were sexually active, 58 girls reported becoming pregnant over the course of the study. And 33 boys reported that they had gotten a girl pregnant during this period. Those who were in the 90th percentile, in terms of the amount of exposure they had to sexually explicit shows, were nearly twice as likely as those in the 10th percentile to have gotten pregnant — or gotten someone else pregnant.”
Anita Chandra, a behavioral scientist at RAND and lead author of the study, says
"The amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years, and there is little representation of safer sex practices in those portrayals."
The RAND study comes at a time of growing concern about teen pregnancy. In December of 2007, the Centers for Disease Control reported the first increase in the teen pregnancy rate since 1991. The teen birth rate for ages 15-19 rose three percent between 2005 and 2006. That followed a 14-year downward trend in which the teen birth rate fell by 34 percent from its all-time peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991.
Monday, January 12. 2009
Tomorrow, PRC is hosting an exciting and informative Capitol Hill Roundtable on one of America's greatest challenges: energy. Come join us! Between now and 2030, U.S. population is projected to rise by nearly 60 million, a jump of almost 20 percent. While per capita energy consumption may be gradually declining, total U.S. energy consumption is continuing to rise. What does that mean for America's energy future? Given the rising U.S. demand for energy, is it possible to eliminate, or even reduce, U.S. dependence on foreign oil? Can the U.S. successfully reduce carbon emissions? Can "green energy" fill the void? Will fast-growing states in the South and the West be able to meet the rising demand for electricity from renewable sources? These and other questions will be explored tomorrow by a group of experts that will give us a wide range of perspectives on America's energy future. 2030: Looking Down the Barrel of America's Energy Future Tuesday--January 13, 2009, 2168 Rayburn House Office Building (Gold Room) , 10:30am-12:15pm Panelists: Mr. Paul Holtberg, Representative of the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy Dr. Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Advisor, MISI Mr. Robert Gramlich, Policy Director, American Wind Energy Association Mr. Nate Gorence, Policy Analyst, National Commission on Energy Policy Mr. Jeffrey Stewart, Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Friday, January 9. 2009
Over the last five years, I’ve traveled to India annually for personal and professional reasons. Every year, I notice things changing in the country. As an emerging economy embracing economic liberalization, India has experienced rapid growth in industry, infrastructure, social change, and migration. Changes are also happening with respect to family planning and reproductive health. Just five years ago, the city of Bengaluru displayed no public signs of sex education; today, Kamasutra brand condoms are advertised on national television. With a population of over one billion and projections predicting that by 2030, India will be even more populous than its neighbor, China, demographic challenges within India are numerous. Last year, a Population Reference Bureau report projected that India’s population could reach the 1.8 billion mark by mid-century and might exceed 2 billion by 2101, unless fertility rates decline more sharply in Northern India. Currently, nearly 200 million married couples in India are of reproductive age, yet only over half of them report contraceptive use. Projections indicate that population stabilization can take up to fifty years in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Coupled with historical stigmas about sex, contraception, domestic violence, son selection, sexual assault and rape, and gender roles, many parts of the country possess few methods for men and women to learn more about voluntary family planning, women’s well-being, and reproductive health in a private, unbiased fashion. Recently, however, the Jansankhya Sthirata Kosh (National Population Stabilization Fund) has launched an innovative, confidential call center devoted specifically to disseminating information on topics related to population and reproductive health. Receiving calls mainly from rural parts of the country, call center operators answer a variety of questions regarding sex, fertility, infant and maternal health, and contraceptive use and availability from information provided by five Indian medical hospitals. Armed with local knowledge, awareness of social norms regarding population issues, and the ability to build a comfortable rapport with callers, call center operators are providing one-of-a-kind services to the Indian public.
Thursday, January 8. 2009
The next decennial census is now less than 16 months away and preparations are well underway, but questions still linger whether Congress is providing enough funding for the 2010 Census. Obama's transition team reportedly has given the 2010 Census a high priority, but the New York Times editorial board and others have expressed concern about whether the incoming Obama Administration will move swiftly enough to appoint a Census Bureau director. Given the vital importance of the decennial census, in the next few weeks we will be taking a look at what's at stake. While there are many reasons while a full and accurate census is important to the country, reapportionment is the one that strikes closest to home for many Members of Congress. The data collected by the 2010 Census will be used to adjust the number of House seats that each state is entitled to. Last month, Election Data Services released a report indicating that population shifts last year could shift more seats between four states than what was reported by EDS in 2007. EDS reported that: The states of Michigan and New Jersey have lost or not gained as much population as earlier in the decade, and now have lost a congressional seat in the new study. The two seats shift to Missouri (to eliminate their loss reported last year) and Texas (which now would be adding three seats to their delegation). Overall, the new 2008 estimates show that eight congressional seats in 14 states have already changed at this point in the decade, if a new apportionment was made with the updated numbers. Five states-Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah-would each gain a seat and Texas would gain three seats if the U.S. House of Representatives were reapportioned with census population estimates for July 1, 2008, according to Election Data Services' analysis. Eight states would lose seats-Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Let's hope that Members of Congress from these states and others are paying attention: The Census is coming.
|
