|
Wednesday, November 26. 2008
This past week I attended a plenary session at the annual conference of the Southern California Grantmakers at which Kristen Lewis made a presentation about a new report that gives an eye-opening view of human development in the U.S. Published recently by the Columbia University Press, The Measure of America, reveals large disparities in health, education and living standards in the U.S. Applying the same methodology that has been used in the international arena to evaluate the status of human development in developing countries, the researchers turned the microscope on the U.S all the way down to the congressional district level. Since the United Nations Development Programme published the first Human Development Report in 1990, more than 500 national and regional reports have been made. The UNDP reports have prodded governments in many developing nations to take steps to boost education and health programs in underperforming areas. Now, with this first ever close up look at the state of human development in the U.S., maybe U.S. policymakers will be goaded into action. Using census and other U.S. government data from 2005, The Measure of America provides several measures of human development disaggregated by state and congressional district, as well as by gender, race, and ethnicity. Every member of the U.S. House of Representatives will now be able to compare the level of human development in their district to the levels in every other Congressional district, and policymakers at all levels will have a better grasp of disparities by gender, race and ethnicity. Policymakers will also be able to see how the U.S. or their district stacks up against levels of development in other nations. Here are some of the key findings from the report and index: - In Washington, D.C., the average life expectancy is 73.8 years; in Hawaii, it is 81.7 years, a difference of almost 8 years.
- Kentucky's Fifth Congressional District, encompassing the southeastern part of the state, is at the bottom of the rankings with an average life expectancy of 72.6 years. Virginia's Eighth District, covering urban northern Virginia, is at the top of the table with a life expectancy of 82.9-a difference of more than a decade. Residents of Kentucky's Fifth District have an average life expectancy equal to that of the average American three decades ago.
- Asian females live on average to 88.8 years; African American females live to 76.3-a difference of more than 12 years.
- Among males, Asians live, on average, to 83.6; African Americans to 69.4-a difference of 14 years.
- The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland. If the U.S. rate were equal to that of first-ranked Sweden, twenty-one thousand more American babies would have lived to celebrate their first birthday in 2005.
- The top 1 percent of households possesses a full third of America's wealth. Households in the top 10 percent of income distribution hold more than 71 percent of the wealth, while those in the lowest 60 percent possess just 4 percent of wealth.
- Fifteen percent of American children-10.7 million girls and boys-live in families with monthly incomes of less than $1,500 per month.
- White males, the highest earners, make more than $37,000 per year, on average; at the low end of the scale, Latino females earn little more than $16,000.
- California's Thirtieth Congressional District (from the Malibu coast east to Beverly Hills and West Hollywood) tops the list on the Education Index: 57 percent of adults over twenty-five have at least a bachelor's degree, and only 5 percent failed to graduate high school. In the lowest-scoring U.S. congressional district, Texas's Twenty-Ninth (predominantly eastern Houston city neighborhoods), only 6 percent of adults have earned a bache lor's degree, and 46 percent did not complete high school. In terms of high school completion rates, the Twenty-Ninth Congressional District in Texas is today roughly where the whole country was in 1970; in terms of bachelor's degree attainment, this district is behind the 1960 national average.
- High levels of educational attainment among Asians drives their number-one HD Index ranking by race/ethnicity. Half of all Asians have at least a col lege degree, compared to roughly 30 percent of whites, 17 percent of African Americans, 14 percent of Native Americans, and 12 percent of Latinos.
- By the end of fourth grade, African American and Latino children, and chil dren of all races who are living in poverty, are two years behind their more affluent, predominantly white peers in reading and math. They have fallen three years behind by eighth grade, and four years behind by twelfth grade.
While much of this information is available elsewhere, this report brings it all together in a form that should educate, and hopefully motivate, federal and state legislators. Congratulations to Sarah Bud-Sharps, Kristen Lewis, and Eduardo Borges-Martin for giving us all a clearer picture of human development in America.
Thursday, November 6. 2008
There is an unsettled debate about what level of human population is environmentally and agriculturally sustainable at current, or increased, levels of consumption. Twelve years ago, Joel E. Cohen, wrote a provocative book, entitled, “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” that ratcheted up the debate. More recently, the World Wildlife Fund released the Living Planet Report 2008, which gives an overview of how human activities might be impacting the planet’s natural resource base. The WWF report asserts that: 1. We are facing an “ecological credit crunch.” At current rates of consumption, we will require two planets by the mid-2030s.
2. While this challenge is enormous, we can reverse current trends through an integrated approach by governments, private sector players, and civil society. Technology transfers, incentives for local innovation, sustainable urban planning, empowerment of women, and access to voluntary family planning can all contribute to achieving long-term sustainability. From a demographic perspective, this report provides some important insights on the possible relationships between population and sustainability. According to the Living Planet Index, in just 35 years, the Earth’s wildlife populations have experienced a 33% decline in numbers, largely impacting tropical, terrestrial, dryland and freshwater plant and animal species. This loss is due to a number of factors including habitat loss from agricultural development, exploitation of species, pollution, the rapid growth of invasive species, and climate change. If human demands for natural resource use and infrastructure development increase, more wildlife populations will be at risk of endangerment or extinction, affecting food, water, health, energy security, and frequency and vulnerability to natural disaster. Population and consumption trends are highlighted in this report. Globally, population and per person consumption is on the rise. While high-income countries contain 15% of the global population, they are responsible for 36% of the global ecological footprint due to consumer demand for natural resources. In middle-income countries, populations are variable; some countries are experiencing slower population growth while the region overall has doubled in population since 1961. Concurrently, per person footprints have also increased by 21%. The accelerated rate of consumption and production in emerging economies contributes to increasing individual footprints. In China, rapid increases in population and per person footprints yielded an overall quadrupling of the country’s total ecological footprint. Overall, middle-income countries are responsible for the largest demand on the Earth’s resources; their consumption patterns account for 39% of humanity’s total footprint. Low-income countries show the most rapid population growth, decreasing biocapacity per person, and the lowest per person ecological footprints in the world. These trends are shown in the graphs released in the Living Planet Report 2008: 
40WorldIncome.pdf While many nations consume resources produced within their national boundaries, international trade of natural resources accounts for over 40% of the total global ecological footprint. The Living Planet Report 2008 raises some compelling questions about our ecological future. By incorporating demographic data with trends in consumption, trade, and biodiversity, this report recognizes the complexity of the issue and the corresponding need for an integrated approach to the problem.
|