What I Did with My Sweltering Weekend
Over the weekend and into this week we in the District (and all around the Northeast I'm told), had the pleasure of enduring 4 days of sweat-popping, mind-numbing, oppressive heat. What did I decide to do to commemorate the first day of this meteorological gift? Get into my stuffiest business clothes and attend a conference on demographics and climate change of course!
The planners of the conference (chief among them Brian Massey, brother of one of my predecessors in the communications internship - FCNL connections abound!) were prescient in their choice of topic-the moment couldn't haven't been better to discuss both climate change and demographic issues. The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill had been blocked the morning before, and the heat had me wanting to melt away and die, thus reducing the population of the Potomac region by one. (Ok- that last connection was a stretch.)
In all seriousness though, the conference made it worth getting into uncomfortable clothes on a Saturday morning and tromping down to a conference center in Foggy Bottom. I only stayed for the morning (GRE studying called), but the first two speakers were interesting, and brought a fresh perspective to the politics of climate change and the role that demography plays in it.
The first, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), gave a fascinating play-by-play of that week in climate legislation (aka- the busiest week ever in climate change legislation). Her stories of hours spent listening to the bill read, senatorial shenanigans and ultimate defeat, which she presented with a surprising amount of optimism, made me think two things: 1) The situation is not so dire as I thought, maybe we are making some progress on seeing Congress move on this issue and, 2) alternately, maybe this lady has been working on the Hill too long.
The second speaker, who is a vice-president at the Worldwatch Institute presented a sharp contrast to the pragmatism that preceded him. Ostensibly he was promoting his book, More, but really he was thinking through was should be done about climate change and scarcity of resources, and how we can use sensible approaches to population to deal with these threats. I thought his ultimate message, that we should simply let women decide how many kids they want to have, no government interfering one way or the other, made a lot of sense. (I pretty much always think I know best, so why not in this instance?)
The most dynamic aspect of the part of the conference I attended was the fundamental divide between the lobbyist and the think-tanker on how to provide incentives for cutting down on greenhouse gases. The former asserted that cap and trade is effective, and the only way to get legislation through Congress. The latter thought that carbon tax (or dividends) would be better. The debate sizzled, and confused people in the audience about what to think (which expert to believe??) It certainly brought up important questions, and demonstrated that though there is an urgent need to remedy climate change, there are still not clear cut solutions.
What lessons that can be drawn from my morning? Always go to conferences if you can, even if it is 110 degrees (no exaggeration) outside, and debates are fun and productive, provided you know when to end the debate and take real steps toward change (Think tanks: you are on notice).
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook| Stumbleupon
The planners of the conference (chief among them Brian Massey, brother of one of my predecessors in the communications internship - FCNL connections abound!) were prescient in their choice of topic-the moment couldn't haven't been better to discuss both climate change and demographic issues. The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill had been blocked the morning before, and the heat had me wanting to melt away and die, thus reducing the population of the Potomac region by one. (Ok- that last connection was a stretch.)
In all seriousness though, the conference made it worth getting into uncomfortable clothes on a Saturday morning and tromping down to a conference center in Foggy Bottom. I only stayed for the morning (GRE studying called), but the first two speakers were interesting, and brought a fresh perspective to the politics of climate change and the role that demography plays in it.
The first, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), gave a fascinating play-by-play of that week in climate legislation (aka- the busiest week ever in climate change legislation). Her stories of hours spent listening to the bill read, senatorial shenanigans and ultimate defeat, which she presented with a surprising amount of optimism, made me think two things: 1) The situation is not so dire as I thought, maybe we are making some progress on seeing Congress move on this issue and, 2) alternately, maybe this lady has been working on the Hill too long.
The second speaker, who is a vice-president at the Worldwatch Institute presented a sharp contrast to the pragmatism that preceded him. Ostensibly he was promoting his book, More, but really he was thinking through was should be done about climate change and scarcity of resources, and how we can use sensible approaches to population to deal with these threats. I thought his ultimate message, that we should simply let women decide how many kids they want to have, no government interfering one way or the other, made a lot of sense. (I pretty much always think I know best, so why not in this instance?)
The most dynamic aspect of the part of the conference I attended was the fundamental divide between the lobbyist and the think-tanker on how to provide incentives for cutting down on greenhouse gases. The former asserted that cap and trade is effective, and the only way to get legislation through Congress. The latter thought that carbon tax (or dividends) would be better. The debate sizzled, and confused people in the audience about what to think (which expert to believe??) It certainly brought up important questions, and demonstrated that though there is an urgent need to remedy climate change, there are still not clear cut solutions.
What lessons that can be drawn from my morning? Always go to conferences if you can, even if it is 110 degrees (no exaggeration) outside, and debates are fun and productive, provided you know when to end the debate and take real steps toward change (Think tanks: you are on notice).
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook| Stumbleupon
posted by Caroline at
9:04 AM
3 Comments:
Simply letting women decide how many kids they want to have certainly makes a lot of sense from a female empowerment stance, but the premise that this will necessarily lead to a redecution in global population is far from evident. Is there strong evidence to suggest women in developing countries (presumably we're talking primarily about developing countries here, as that's where global population growth comes from) would choose to have fewer kids than they are having now? These parents need to have offspring who can care for and provide for them in their old age (as any kind of 'social security' programs are minimal), they know the odds are a certain percentage of their children will die before reaching adulthood, and thus they have numerous children. Beyond which, "simply letting women decide how many kids they want to have" will undoubtedly involve some kind of "education" or "outreach", which -- given the contentious nature of the topic -- certainly cannot be considered values-neutral. It is all too easy for this kind of idea to turn into Western leaders "teaching" women in developing countries how many children they want to have, which, not coincidentally, ends up being the number which best suits our own needs...
Two ideas about your comment:
1) I don't know if the idea is explicitly reducing population or increasing it (which might be a concern in Europe), it's about getting the world to a place where they have a more healthy, natural population I think. Get the government the heck out of making womens decisions for them would achieve this.
2) I agree that it is a very sticky issue, and my intent is certainly not to "teach" women in developing countries how to plan their families. It's about giving women in developing countries the freedom and the tools to plan their families.
Nice blog Caroline. :)
Re: a concerned friend--
Actually, and perhaps surprisingly (or not), it seems that most women around the world (in the developed and developing worlds alike) do not often express a wish to have more than a few children. Study after study finds that women in countries with very high birthrates (India, the Philippines come to mind) often report that they see an "ideal" family size to be closer to what we see in the U.S.--2-3 children. Of course, some want 5, and some 1, but very few women wish to have 7, 10, or more children. Not only do multiple births obviously take a toll on their health, but more importantly, they find that large families are impossible to support on a poverty-level income.
Additionally, there is real-world evidence that giving women access to affordable, modern family planning decreases birthrates substantially. Good case studies for this trend are Iran and Mexico, who have seen their birthrates stabilize to near-U.S. levels in just a few decades of government-supported family planning programs.
Most women want to be able to control their fertility, be it to space births or limit the number of children they have all together. Unfortunately, in much of the developing world, access to contraceptives and sex education is non-existent.
It might not be a complete solution, but there is evidence that it makes a difference, in the best way possible--giving women the freedom to control their own bodies and lives.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home