How hateful rhetoric connects to real-world violence |
- Lessons from the Cape Town water crisis and the need for a renewed technical agenda
- How Euclid, Ohio is filling vacant Main Street storefronts to recover from the pandemic
- Is there too little oversight of private tech companies in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
- COVID-19 takes its toll on American life
- The Russia-Ukraine war may be bad news for nuclear nonproliferation
- Climate change creates financial risks. Investors need to know what those are.
- The infrastructure law’s untapped potential for promoting community safety
| Lessons from the Cape Town water crisis and the need for a renewed technical agenda Posted: 30 Mar 2022 01:00 PM PDT By Jessica Fell, Kirsty Carden Cape Town, South Africa faced a crippling drought between 2016 and 2018. The widely reported "Day Zero" crisis, wherein the city faced the real possibility of the taps being turned off, presented an acute shock and highlighted major vulnerabilities in the city's water supply system, which relies largely on six large dams. Due to a combination of demand incentives, intensive supply management, and behavioral change campaigns, Cape Town was able to avert "Day Zero." However, the crisis provided a number of useful lessons and exposed the critical need for a water system rooted in principles of resilience and a renewed technical approach to water management aimed at equity, sustainability, and water sensitivity. Having recently acknowledged World Water Day 2022, it is an opportune time to reflect on how the crisis in Cape Town was yet another expression of the growing water turbulence characterizing our world today. Water scarcity is becoming an increasing threat because of climate change impacts (including changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures) and increasing water demand. Symptoms such as dysfunctional sanitation in urban slums, deteriorating water quality in river catchments and aquifers, and extensive biodiversity loss are critical warning signals that conventional urban water management is ill-suited to address water security concerns.
In urban areas, human-centered processes govern the water cycle; urban water users do not consume water but rather pollute it. Water security is thus more than a quantity issue; it considers quality, productivity, attitudes and behaviors, and governance. Effectively managing water scarcity requires multidisciplinary perspectives in complex decisionmaking structures—engineering, planning, hydrology, environmental and climate science, social science, policy expertise, and more. A multidisciplinary academic team from three higher education institutions in the Western Cape province of South Africa came together following the Cape Town drought to explore different responses to water scarcity across the world—in a collaboration named "Cities facing escalating water shortages." Six task teams were established to consider political, economic, technical science, natural science, social science, and civil society aspects through several workshops with 50 diverse stakeholders. The collaboration produced an edited collection of position documents that address these multiple perspectives on urban water security in a publication titled "Towards the blue-green city: Building urban water resilience." The five key lessons that had already emerged from the Cape Town water crisis were sharpened during the "Cities facing escalating water shortages" collaboration as follows:
These principles emphasize the necessity to consider the urban water cycle as an integrated system that is intrinsically connected to the wider catchment and its varied users, as well as the urgent need to incorporate climate adaptation measures as part of water management in cities. In order to realize the vision of a water-sensitive city, innovative infrastructure design and governance options need to be adopted—including building a diversity of supplies that provide water that is fit for purpose and that is underpinned by timely and actionable water data, not only for management purposes but to create "water-savvy" citizens. A renewed technical approach also speaks to the importance of multifunctional, blue-green infrastructure and enhanced ecosystems. Critical to this is an enabling governance, political, and legislative environment led by multidisciplinary teams that facilitate and entrench equity, resilience, and sustainability in day-to-day practices. These key lessons that emerged from the water crisis extend to all urban areas in water stressed regions of Africa that are struggling to grapple with increasingly water-turbulent times. The grand scale and "wicked" nature of current urban water challenges driven by climate and population changes, resource pressures, and water pollution sound out the call for a renewed technical agenda and water-sensitive approaches within cities. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How Euclid, Ohio is filling vacant Main Street storefronts to recover from the pandemic Posted: 30 Mar 2022 10:18 AM PDT By Ilana Preuss The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive retail vacancies in downtowns across the United States. These vacancies are hard enough to fill in previously thriving urban areas, let alone in already struggling Rust Belt areas and small cities. Yet Euclid, Ohio—a majority-Black Rust Belt city of 47,000 people, located on Lake Erie just east of Cleveland—is testing a creative approach to filling its vacant storefronts and paving the way for business districts of all sizes to recover and grow from within.
Euclid is working toward both economic revitalization and inclusive outcomes by supporting local Black- and Latino- or Hispanic-owned small-scale manufacturing businesses on its Main Street. City officials are leading this holistic effort, which has four key elements: 1) training aspiring retail business owners in small-scale manufacturing; 2) identifying flexible commercial spaces; 3) providing targeted rent subsidies; and 4) promoting the space and the businesses in it. If successful, this effort has the potential to build wealth and opportunity among historically excluded residents while supporting a more vibrant downtown. Why small-scale manufacturing matters for equitable growth Startups and new businesses generate virtually all net job growth in America. These often begin as home-based businesses, and those that are successful move into commercial spaces. Yet Black, Latino or Hispanic, Asian American, and other business owners of color face significant barriers to growth, including lack of access to capital and the need to rely on personal funds, credit challenges because of historic inequities, and the disproportionately negative impact of the pandemic on their businesses. These factors create even greater obstacles for a home-based microbusiness to grow into a storefront. By supporting Black- and minority-owned small-scale manufacturing businesses, cities and towns can build an inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem and achieve neighborhood revitalization. Small-scale manufacturers make products that are sold in storefronts and online—think hot sauce, handbags, or hardware. They often grow from one-person enterprises to having multiple employees, meaning they can be an important local source of jobs. They often have production and retail in the same space, making them a draw for visitors who can see things being made, which contributes to a sense of downtown connection and vibrancy. Additionally, small-product businesses often grow directly from local residents and entrepreneurs living within disinvested areas, making them an ideal business sector for expanding more equitable outcomes in entrepreneurship.
Small business owners at a holiday market in Euclid. Source: City of Euclid. For these reasons, the city of Euclid decided to join the Recast Leaders 2021 cohort—an intensive, "get-it-done" program that my organization, Recast City, runs to advance small-scale downtown manufacturing. Over the last 12 months, Euclid's mayor and other officials worked to identify small-scale manufacturers in their city, understand their needs for growth, and implement specific short- and long-term actions to support this business sector and bring more energy and commerce to downtown. How to grow small-scale manufacturing from the ground up The first step in growing small-scale manufacturing is to assess residents' needs and train aspiring retail businesses in skills pricing, marketing, e-commerce, distribution, and other aspects of running a product business. The city of Euclid began this effort by conducting interviews and small group discussions with local entrepreneurs to identify their challenges. They used "connectors"—people who are known and trusted in the community—to find business owners outside of the traditional economic development lists and who have never benefited from local programs nor been connected to programs at a local chamber of commerce or Small Business Development Center. Their engagement with aspiring business owners found that many home-based entrepreneurs wanted to grow their businesses but didn't have the expertise or conditions to scale to retail spaces. To address this gap, the city ran a small business competition, Recast Small Business, in 2021 and provided winners with a four-week online business readiness course and the opportunity to access flexible sub-leasing arrangements to transition their business into a storefront. Of the 20 local product business owners that participated in the competition, the city selected six businesses—all owned by people of color—as winners. Next, city officials needed to identify flexible, affordable commercial space that graduates of the business readiness course could use to transition their business into a physical storefront. To do so, the city formed a public-private partnership with a downtown property owner to create storefronts that offer flexible retail space for small-scale manufacturing. This year, the city took a master lease on four vacant adjoining storefronts and established a $165,000 fund to subsidize the rent—enabling city officials to offer flexible sub-leasing arrangements to graduates of the business course and provide them with below-market lease rates in smaller spaces with shorter leases. The storefronts are currently being renovated and five product businesses have been selected for the spaces when they're ready. The city has already started marketing these businesses in newspaper profiles, on the city website, in social media, and at the city’s holiday celebration as specially invited vendors. Now, Euclid is building on the momentum of this first project by converting part of a former downtown school into a shared kitchen for food entrepreneurs. The school is currently being revitalized and is estimated to be ready later this year. Civic leadership is critical for success Euclid's experience demonstrates the importance of city leadership—especially the mayor's hands-on involvement—in advancing small-scale manufacturing on Main Street. Due to the sheer number of moving pieces that need to fall into place—the entrepreneurs that need to be identified and engaged, historically excluded communities reached, downtown property owners engaged, city budgets invested, spaces created and filled, and participating businesses promoted—support at the highest level of city government is crucial. As local leaders seek to refill America's vacant downtown storefronts, small-scale manufacturing is a crucial tool to do so equitably. Thanks to the support of dedicated civic leaders, Euclid is showing that a Rust Belt city can point the way. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Is there too little oversight of private tech companies in the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Posted: 30 Mar 2022 07:03 AM PDT By Nicol Turner Lee, Samantha Lai Since February 2022, Ukrainians have produced streams of live videos of warfare, including missile launches, explosions of critical assets, and the horrendous effects of Russian military aggression on civilians. Such collective documentation has appealed to the humanitarian empathies of those watching and sharing these vignettes on broadcast television and social media platforms, while reflecting an apparent lack of diplomacy and conscience of Russian leadership. Modern-day communications historically have been used or manipulated to share the egregious nature of military action or the posture of political zealots, from the War in Vietnam that was broadcasted over television networks to videos showing the aftermath of chemical attacks in Syria. Similarly, social media and other technological tools are not only providing real-time narration of the Ukrainian conflict to ramp up viewers' disapproval of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but are also displaying calls for public diplomacy, which has been exhibited in the recent video appeals by Ukraine's President Zelensky before the U.S. Congress and the U.S. media. The fact that private tech and telecom companies are also creating the rules on how technology is being leveraged during the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is also interesting, particularly since there has been little to no government oversight of their digital undertakings. In this blog, we touch upon three areas where private industry has been most busy in the technological arena—social media, internet infrastructure, and content moderation—and propose questions on how the laissez faire approach to technology during war or serious global confrontations can impact future diplomatic efforts. Social media's role in the Russia-Ukraine conflictPrior to invading Ukraine, Russia increased its disinformation and propaganda capacities on social media to push false narratives supporting an invasion of Ukraine, speaking of the necessity to "denazify" the country and making claims of Ukrainian aggression. During the early days of the invasion, Russian state media were quick to recharacterize the conflict; blaming their brutality in Mariupol on neo-Nazis "hiding behind civilians as a human shield;" attacking an area by a nuclear complex while claiming to protect it; saying that it had been Ukraine, not Russia, that had indiscriminately attacked the residential neighborhoods of Kharkiv; and more. While the Ukrainian government has not actively launched comparable mis/disinformation efforts, some stories of war, such as the confrontation at Snake Island and the Ghost of Kyiv, have skirted the boundaries of fact and fiction. External to both countries, global citizens have also flooded social media with accounts of destruction from other conflicts over the last few weeks, including Russia's previous annexation of Crimea, the ongoing conflict in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and more, making it difficult for the average online user to know the authenticity of the content they are seeing. Followers of the American far-right have also participated in the dissemination of disinformation, including debunked conspiracies of American-funded biolabs in Ukraine that Russia invaded to take over. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues, social media platforms, such as Meta and Twitter, have identified and de-platformed inauthentic activities and campaigns. While these companies have sought to increase their content moderation, they have also faced criticism for failing to act more promptly on such potentially dangerous content. For example, Facebook faced criticism for failing to take down conspiracies of America-funded biolabs in Ukraine promoted by Russian and Chinese state media, and for overlooking Spanish-language disinformation. In response to the misinformation on Tik Tok, the Biden-Harris administration recently intervened to prep influencers on their biggest questions surrounding the ongoing events in Ukraine. With much of the activities occurring on privately-owned platforms, the broad debate should be focused on the greater responsibility of private tech companies to step up their content moderation strategies of rapidly evolving events, and whether governments should provide greater oversight. Examining the proactive role that the EU played in immediately banning Russian news outlets suggests a role for government, but also sets a new precedent for the handling of technology during these times. Here in the US, political battles have raged over the monopolistic and deceptive controls that platform companies have in our democracy, especially via social media. While the slight uptick in de-platforming divisive content has been beneficial in disarming unnecessary divisions, it does beg further inquiry into whether these privately held, online companies should be solely responsible for making such decisions, especially in real-time during international crises. Or should social media companies consider governmental input consistent with First Amendment limitations in setting norms for content hosted on their platforms? Internet backboneAlongside the increased use of social media, the availability and use of internet backhaul have been a critical aspect of this international conflict. Following Russia's invasion, Ukraine petitioned ICANN and RIPE NCC, two key internet organizations responsible for maintaining the core technologies that allow the world's computers to talk to each other, to cut Russian internet services off from the rest of the world. Both organizations ultimately refused Ukraine's request, claiming that despite the war, their core missions were to facilitate communications, not restrict access to portions of the internet. Similar calls from Ukrainian officials and activists for Cloudflare and Akamai, two key web infrastructure and webpage content delivery companies, to cease operations in Russia were similarly rebuffed. Echoing the sentiments of ICANN and RIPE, both companies said they would continue to operate in Russia so that ordinary Russians could continue to receive a secure means of accessing open and accurate information on the conflict. Private infrastructure actors have also played unexpected roles in this conflict. Billionaire Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, heeded calls to expediently provide Starlink satellite internet access terminals to Ukraine. While the Ukrainian usage of the service is currently unknown, the companion app used to access the internet became the top-downloaded app in the country in March 2022. In response to efforts that strengthen internet backhaul and connectivity, Russian forces have been allegedly attempting to jam satellite terminal signals. Similarly, a cyberattack on Viasat, a satellite internet provider and Western defense contractor, which occurred in the opening hours of Russia's invasion into Ukraine, attempted to permanently disable access terminals in Ukraine and other parts of Europe, with some success. While cyber experts had anticipated widespread cyberattacks from Russia, the country had only conducted limited attacks on Ukraine's communications infrastructure and the scale has been small. This has demonstrated the limitations of cyberwar in modern warfare, showing that warfare will remain physical and bloody. Questions of infrastructure in warfare will also continue to center around who should and should not have access to international resources in staying connected, even if some type of compromise is reached between the two countries. And with private sector companies emboldening themselves to respond to the sabotages of internet backhaul, increased national security concerns surrounding such novel developments will continue to surface. Content segmentationFollowing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many Western companies have begun to retreat from the country. Western tech companies have also limited their operations within Russia and have placed restrictions on what Russian internet users can do on their platforms. For example, YouTube has blocked all Russian state media globally, while TikTok had prevented users in Russia from posting on the platform. In return, Russia blocked access to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram in retaliation against measures taken by the platforms. The country also passed a law criminalizing the uploading of "false information" surrounding the invasion of Ukraine. As Russia's internet isolation grows, many have begun wondering if the Kremlin would move to create controls similar to China's Great Firewall. While the Kremlin had been able to establish oversight filters and trigger short-term internet blackouts, changing from a free internet to a more restricted one might be difficult. Russia's attempt to ban Telegram in 2018 was largely ineffective, an order that even government officials did not abide by. Already, VPN use within Russia has been surging in recent weeks, while government attempts to block external access have had limited success. Regardless, these developments raise important questions going forward over the role of a free and open internet during times of global conflict, and how authoritarian countries can attempt to coopt the sovereignty over their digital space, resulting in increased online political propaganda or further restrictions on human rights and other liberties. Going forwardThe Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought forward many important questions on the role of technology and difficult decisions that must be made to ensure openness and accessibility for citizens. In the past, wartime decisions to disable electrical or financial grids went through the hands of the government and the military. Now, content on social media and internet infrastructure is left in the hands of these private actors, adding another dimension to diplomatic decisionmaking. This can result in two potential pathways. The first will embolden closed internet architecture and communications systems that contribute to global turmoil. The other will enable information exchanges that condone acts of aggression both passive and explicit, while engaging the outside world audience as observers. While Congress debates national arguments about the role of technology in democracy, they may want to consider what it means to democratize internet governance and keep companies accountable for decisions made during this international crisis. Thanks to James Seddon for his research assistance. Facebook and Google are general, unrestricted donors to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the authors and not influenced by any donation. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COVID-19 takes its toll on American life Posted: 30 Mar 2022 06:01 AM PDT By Camille Busette COVID-19 has changed American life dramatically. Americans were isolated for much of the pandemic. Many contracted COVID-19 and American families lost over 975,000 loved ones. Millions lost their jobs and often, their employer-sponsored healthcare. 31.6 million people had to go to work to provide the rest of us with frontline services, while others worked from home. Schools converted to online instruction. Parents struggled to juggle childcare and work. First responders and medical care providers worked overtime in the most hopeless context to save the lives that they could save. Life expectancy decreased, particularly for Black and Latino Americans. In a recent Brookings survey fielded by IPSOS from March 11-20, 2022, we asked 1,015 respondents about some of the more subtle but enduring ways in which COVID-19 has altered their lives over the last two years. (Download the survey data filtered by age and income here; download the survey data filtered by gender, race, and employment here.) We surveyed Americans about their support networks since the beginning of the pandemic, their sense of control over their lives, and what help they still needed to be able to support the aspirations of their families. What we found was that the pandemic has been particularly difficult for women, young people, and Black and Latinx Americans. These groups and people earning less than $50,000 annually are particularly in need of policies that support improved well-being. Here are three important insights into some of the more enduring experiential effects of over two years of American life with COVID-19. Experiencing a loss of control over lifeFirst, the most important and disturbing finding from our survey is that many Americans have lost a sense of control over their lives. This was particularly true for women, 26% of whom responded that they felt they had less control over their lives. This result held even for women who did not have children in their homes, a fact which raises questions about what other factors may be contributing to women's sense of loss of control. Interestingly, white women (almost 28%) were more likely to report a loss of control than were Black women (almost 13%) or Latinas (20%). The feeling of loss of control was also true of almost 30% of young people ages 18-34 years old. Men were not far behind in feeling a loss of control over their lives. About 19% of our male respondents reporting feeling less control over their lives, and this result largely held regardless of whether or not there were children in the household. While 25% of Latinos reported a loss of control over their lives, 18% of white men felt the same way and slightly more than 6% of Black men reported a similar perception. Families still need supportSecond, we found that Americans feel they need more help to support the aspirations of their families. The top three needs were income, healthcare, and quality jobs. We also note that Black women reported needing more food support than others we surveyed. Slightly over half (53%) of our sample indicated that they needed more income. As one might expect, this result was most acute for people earning less than $25,000 (63% indicated this as a needed support) but there was still a significant need among the nearly 50% of our respondents who earned $75,000 or more. Sixty percent of Black and Latinx respondents also indicated a need for more income. The pandemic has certainly highlighted the gaps in our healthcare and public health infrastructure. Our survey bears this out as Americans indicate that they continue to struggle with adequate healthcare. About 20% of our Black and 27% of our Latinx respondents indicated that they needed better healthcare to support their families. Thirty percent of people 18-34 years of age and 25% of those earning less than $50,000 also stated a need for better healthcare. As we know, the pandemic was also particularly devastating, in its early phases, for those living in crowded quarters. We found that adequate housing remains a challenge for Black and Latinx households in particular, with about 18% of Black and 22% of Latinx respondents identifying better housing as a needed support. In the earliest months of the pandemic, many millions of Americans experienced food insecurity. In our survey, a disturbing 18% of Black women reported continuing to need support for adequate food, the highest in our sample. Finding a quality job was challenging before the pandemic began. In our survey, Latinx respondents reported the highest need for a quality job, with nearly 30% indicating that as a needed support. Nearly 18% of the Black women in our sample also reported needing a quality job to support their families' aspirations. Everyone needs a quality job, but it is clear that two years into the pandemic, that need is most acute for Latinx and Black households. Overall, increased income, healthcare, quality jobs, and better housing remain important needs for American households, particularly for Latinx and Black families and low-income Americans. Support networks have changed, but not as much as we might have expectedThird, we also wanted to know if and why support networks had changed for Americans. What we found here was somewhat reassuring. For 66% of the people we surveyed, support networks were largely unchanged. Of the 33% for whom there were changes, half reported changes in their support network were due to families experiencing health, financial, or childcare/eldercare challenges. One interesting finding about support networks was that almost 20% of the Black women we surveyed reported an improvement in their social networks, as did almost 30% of those between the ages of 18-24. While it is premature to speculate how Americans' social support networks might change in the new, endemic phase of COVID-19, there is some reason for optimism. Policy OpportunitiesIt is not surprising that Americans are changed by more than two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supporting Americans to create a new normal will require important support. Our survey indicates there are two ways in which policymakers at every level can contribute to Americans' greater well-being in the new era of endemic COVID-19. Many Americans feel they have lost control over their lives and have indicated that they need better healthcare. To address this, policymakers should, first, be prepared improve healthcare access in all communities. Expand Medicaid in those states where there has not been a Medicaid expansion and use ARP funds to ensure low-income communities and communities of color have easily accessible, affordable, quality, and culturally appropriate health and mental healthcare services. Second, policymakers should use ARP, infrastructure funds, and other investments to ensure plentiful affordable housing with easy, pedestrian access to amenities to improve the availability of quality, family-sustaining jobs. Our neighbors are telling us where they need help and how to pick up the pieces. Let's ensure that a post-COVID-19 U.S. is one where everyone, including our most vulnerable, is on the path to healing. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Russia-Ukraine war may be bad news for nuclear nonproliferation Posted: 29 Mar 2022 01:40 PM PDT By Michael E. O'Hanlon, Bruce Riedel As we watch with horror and sadness the extreme devastation associated with Russia's ongoing attack on Ukraine — with perhaps 10 million displaced and up to 20,000 killed to date — another potential casualty of this conflict is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the general international effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Alas, though some arms control advocates would like to argue that the only purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on one's territory, recent world events confirm that nuclear weapons can have another plausible purpose for some countries. For smaller or weaker states, owning nuclear weapons helps ensure that a large country will not be able to attack them and overthrow their government. Or, at least, the converse is true — NOT having nukes clearly leaves one vulnerable. Just ask Saddam Hussein, who did not have nuclear weapons, about the 2003 Iraq war. Or Moammar Gadhafi, who also did not have nuclear weapons, about the 2011 NATO air campaign launched against Libya after he threatened to exterminate domestic opponents. Of course, we cannot really ask them — because not only are their regimes gone, they are dead, as a direct consequence of wars that they could not deter with conventional arms alone. Watching all this, Kim Jong Un had already made the calculation, long before the Ukraine war, that he would cherish the North Korean nuclear weapons that his grandfather and father had bequeathed him. Our efforts to persuade him to denuclearize have failed under U.S. President Joe Biden's four immediate predecessors, and the Biden team itself appears to be putting little effort into the quest itself, perhaps out of recognition that the task is just too hard if attempted in absolutist terms. North Korea is not alone. Twenty four years ago we tried to persuade Pakistan not to test nuclear weapons after India had done so. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott led a team to Islamabad to make the case. Then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reluctantly said he had no choice, and, buoyed by Saudi money and his Chinese ally, Pakistan tested. Now we watch a Ukrainian regime vilified as "Nazi" in nature by Russian propaganda fighting for its territory, as well as its existence as a country — and indeed the personal survival of its leadership. Can there be any doubt that Putin would prefer the dismemberment and annexation of Ukraine — Putin has repeatedly called into doubt the very concept of Ukraine as a sovereign state — and the capture or killing of its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, given the way Putin has demonized him? When aggressors have extremist, existential goals like these, nuclear theorists rightly argue that nuclear weapons alas CAN be relevant, for threatening unacceptable retaliation to any such attack and thereby deterring it. At the end of the Cold War, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear arsenal. The fact that, in 1994, Ukraine returned to Russia almost 2,000 nuclear weapons that it had inherited from the breakup of the Soviet Union — receiving in reply a guarantee, in the form of the Budapest Memorandum (also signed by the U.K. and U.S.) that Ukraine would not be attacked — adds insult to the injury. Presumably Kyiv would like to take that decision back, given Russia's subsequent behavior. Some countries will draw two lessons, neither in the interest of the United States, from this history. If you have nuclear weapons, keep them. If you don't have them yet, get them, especially if you lack a strong defender like the United States as your ally, and if you have beef with a big country that could plausibly lead to war. Thinking through similar hypothetical scenarios 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy predicted that there would be at least 25 nuclear weapons powers in the course of the 20th century. Luckily, he was wrong, and today we still have only nine. But the reasons for Kennedy's fears persist; in fact, recent events have exacerbated and magnified them. There is no simple solution to this problem, and we certainly do not propose that the United States enter the Ukraine war and fight a nuclear superpower today to reduce the risks of nuclear nonproliferation tomorrow. That would be oxymoronic in the extreme. However, there are other more practical implications of this analysis. One is clearly that the Biden team and U.S. government, more broadly, should be working as hard as possible, not only to help Ukraine defend itself, but to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict that preserves intact most or all of Ukraine's territory as well as its government. Otherwise, beyond the further damage done to Ukraine and its people, the resulting precedent will be terrible for the cause of nuclear nonproliferation. Second, we need to be more careful about promising alliance expansion when we don't really mean it. NATO proposed, back in 2008, that Ukraine would someday be invited to join the alliance — but with no timetable and no interim security guarantee. That had the net effect of painting a bullseye on Kyiv's back that Russia has now targeted. Third, where we do have allies and alliances, we need to be resolute and consistent in conveying our seriousness about defending them. Biden is doing this latter job well, but his predecessor did not. If we fail in these efforts, Kennedy's prediction about the spread of nuclear weapons may wind up just being premature, not wrong. That would be a very dangerous and regrettable outcome for the future of international security. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Climate change creates financial risks. Investors need to know what those are. Posted: 29 Mar 2022 12:11 PM PDT By Michael Panfil, David G. Victor The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted recently to move a proposal forward that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the financial risks they face from climate change. These rules aim to bring corporate obligations for the disclosure of climate risk level with the requirements for disclosure of other forms of financial risk. Doing so is long overdue and a critical step to ensuring investors have access to information about the investment risks faced from climate. Those financial harms include "transition risks" stemming from shifts in innovation, technology, and competitive landscape as well as "physical risks", such as more severe wildfires to more frequent flooding. Our financial system has always relied on publicly traded companies being transparent about the risks their businesses navigate. This open accounting of business prospects is fundamental to the healthy operation of our economy — reliable information is the bedrock of efficient markets. Publicly traded companies are required to regularly issue disclosure reports that investors — from Wall Street to Main Street — rely on when choosing where to invest their money seeking opportunity and avoiding unwarranted risk. The consequences of climate change are creating new and growing forms of financial risk that investors need to consider when choosing how to prudently allocate capital. In the last two years alone, the U.S. suffered more than 40 weather disasters that inflicted at least $1 billion in economic damage each. A recent study found that 215 of the world's largest companies face almost $1 trillion in climate-related risk. These climate risks pose sprawling challenges, disrupting "food supplies, business operations, and economic productivity, while damaging homes and personal property, public infrastructure, and critical ecosystems across the country." The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded similarly, finding that "extreme events and climate hazards are adversely affecting multiple economic activities across North America and have disrupted supply-chain infrastructure and trade." Disclosure is necessary because climate risk is investment risk, and market participants have a significant interest in understanding the size and scope of that risk. Other countries, from the U.K. to New Zealand to Japan, have taken concrete steps to require that the mounting harms of climate change to their financial systems are proactively identified and understood. Yet in the U.S., companies are not currently required to disclose the financial risks created by climate change. Our existing rules are voluntary and inadequate. One recent study found that only one percent of companies participating in a voluntary set of standards provided sufficient information on their transition plans for the lower-carbon future. Another, jointly conducted by researchers at Brookings Institution and EDF, found similar results, particularly on the disclosure of physical risk. Another study from Brookings, cited by the SEC in its new draft rule, found highly uneven patterns of disclosure about climate risks — especially on physical risks. An efficient market requires more information. That's why the investment community has been among the most vocal in calling for the SEC to act. Ninety-three percent of institutional investors believe that climate-related financial risk "has yet to be priced in by all key financial markets globally." Many of the world's largest asset managers have called for strong, mandatory climate disclosure rules to improve their ability to prudently manage investments — in their comments to the SEC they also urged (and the SEC heeded) some caution so that disclosure rules stayed in line with the information that the markets most needed to function well. Many of the large publicly-traded American businesses that would be subject to these rules have also expressed support for mandatory SEC climate risk disclosure, including Apple, Walmart, and FedEx. These businesses and many others understand that the U.S. financial system is healthiest when market participants are able to make well-informed decisions. The proposed rule addresses these barriers by setting forth a range of information requests, all designed to address investor need. Physical risk disclosure, such as disclosure of risks associated with more severe extreme weather or increasing wildfires, is a critical part of the proposal, which requires registrants to disclose "any climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the registrant's business or consolidated financial statement." The extent to which the company uses specific tools to understand the financial risks they face from climate, such as scenario analysis or transition plans, is likewise subject to the proposed rule. Other aspects of a registrant's climate risk are additionally subject to disclosure, including provisions of information relevant to the company's specific risk management processes, greenhouse gas emissions, line-item metrics on the effects of climate-related risks on corporate finances, and climate-related targets. Understanding and responding to the danger climate change poses across the American economy will be complicated. Getting this right will take time and will require a lot of learning. Mandatory climate risk disclosure by the SEC is a necessary early step. It will bring disclosure of climate risk level with other forms of financial risk and will help ensure that investors have access to relevant information for prudent management of the capital they invest. The SEC's new proposal aims to achieve this end, consistent with the agency's clear and explicit authority. Commissioners should swiftly move to finalize the proposal and put this much-needed rule into effect. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The infrastructure law’s untapped potential for promoting community safety Posted: 29 Mar 2022 11:19 AM PDT By Sam Washington, Hanna Love, Thea Sebastian In recent months, fears of violence have captured local and national headlines alike. While it is incorrect to say we are experiencing a "crime wave," the desire to feel safe—and to actually be safe—when walking in your neighborhood, caring for your children, or driving to work each day is an issue that deserves our full focus and evidence-based policymaking. Rather than revert to punitive policies that have proven to be ineffective and counterproductive, policymakers should follow the evidence and take a deeper look at new sources of funding that could be used to promote a more holistic vision of community safety. If they do, they may find an unexpected tool: federal infrastructure grants. The intersection between community safety, the built environment, and infrastructure is often overlooked, but new federal funding opportunities—including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP)—offer local leaders an unparalleled opportunity to explore this forgotten avenue. In this piece, we explore ways to harness the evidence on community safety to make much-needed infrastructure investments that will make our states, cities, towns, territories, and tribal nations healthier and safer. The intersections between safety, the built environment, and infrastructure A wealth of empirical evidence demonstrates that the built environment has a significant impact on the prevalence of violence in communities. Brookings recently reviewed the evidence on this relationship, finding that several key physical interventions can lead to reductions in rates of violent crime. For instance, relatively simple changes to street and sidewalk design can lower rates of violence. In New York City, streetlights were found to reduce "index crimes"—including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and some property crimes—by more than a third. Road congestion has such an impact on commuters' stress and aggression that research finds a correlation between traffic conditions and rates of domestic violence, indicating that traffic-fighting street design may make communities safer on a number of levels. Additionally, such investments can reduce pedestrian deaths—a major threat to safety across our nation. Efforts to promote greener, cleaner communities also have safety benefits. Evidence shows that high rates of daily air pollution levels are linked to higher rates of violent crime, and that improving air quality may be a cost-effective way to reduce crime. Efforts to combat climate change and implement climate cooling technology may also prove effective at reducing violence, given the connection between heat and violent crime. The research into neighborhood restoration projects is similarly compelling. An urban green stormwater maintenance program in Philadelphia significantly reduced drug crimes and burglary in neighboring areas, while also reducing homicides and assaults (though not at the level of statistical significance). Recent studies in other jurisdictions, including Baltimore and Youngstown, Ohio, have found that maintaining green space reduces many types of violent crime. Meanwhile, public health interventions in the built environment—such as lead remediation—have also been found to significantly reduce crime and improve outcomes for youth. Infrastructure investments also spur economic development, which serves a range of community safety goals. Research has found that increasing access to rail transit lowers crime rates, which makes sense when you consider that reliable transportation is a major factor in accessing jobs, education, and other means of economic opportunity. In fact, of the five factors studied by Raj Chetty's Opportunity Insights team, shorter commute times in a given neighborhood were found to be the strongest predictor of upward mobility. Consequently, public transportation investments have been shown to reduce local inequality, which evidence shows to be a driver of property and violent crime. The specific infrastructure investments needed will vary by place and community priorities. But overall, the evidence remains clear: By strategically investing in infrastructure, local leaders can make their communities safer, healthier, and more equitable. The question for policymakers now is: How do you pay for it? How to leverage the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to promote safety Grants from the IIJA provide an ideal—and long-overdue—funding source for local leaders to recognize the intersection between community safety and the built environment and improve streets, sidewalks, schools, and more. The IIJA allocates some $1 trillion to bolster infrastructure nationwide, about $550 billion of which is new spending. (Visit the Brookings Federal Infrastructure Hub to understand what the act includes and how it works.) There is room for concern about the equity implications of the IIJA dollars, as Brookings colleagues have recently pointed out. But there is also reason for optimism—including the significant potential of infrastructure to improve community safety, especially in areas that have suffered from underinvestment or past community-destroying infrastructure projects. To better equip local leaders with the evidence and resources to promote safety through the IIJA, Civil Rights Corps recently released a policy guide, Harnessing Infrastructure Grants for Community Safety, that provides a roadmap for explaining exactly how policymakers can leverage these funds to make holistic, evidence-based investments into community safety. In fact, the built environment investments discussed above as contributing to enhanced community safety—from street design to reductions in air pollution to lead remediation—can all be financed using IIJA grants. Table 1 provides a brief overview of IIJA grants that are well suited to these efforts, which are discussed more in Civil Rights Corps' full report. Table 1. Potential Grant Avenues in IIJA to Improve Community Safety
Source: Civil Rights Corps, "Harnessing Infrastructure Grants for Community Safety" To demonstrate how these funding streams could be used to make communities safer, let's examine the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, to which the IIJA allocated an additional $72 billion over five years, while expanding the kinds of activities it can be used for. Local governments could allocate some of this new funding through community-led processes (such as participatory budgeting) to determine what their needs are and how the money should be spent. A neighborhood with lots of vacant lots might decide to invest in a greening project to beautify the neighborhood and improve air quality to reduce the risk of crime. Or, a neighborhood with high rates of unemployment could ask for new bus stops to be built, so residents are better connected to job opportunities. Communities across the country are already demonstrating how federal grants can be used to fund community-centered solutions. For example, since 2017, residents in two Oakland, Calif. districts have had the power to set priorities for how federal Community Development Block Grant funds should be spent to improve low- to moderate-income communities. So far, they've invested in street safety improvements, streetlights, affordable housing, and more. Using American Rescue Plan Act and other funds to maximize impact Many community safety projects worth funding will not be infrastructure-related, or will otherwise fall outside of the IIJA's grants. Luckily, there are several other federal funding sources that can be used alongside or in conjunction with infrastructure grants to promote safe, healthy communities. In particular, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP)—most notably its large and flexible Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds—provides money for states and localities to fund a range of safety investments, from affordable housing to violence interrupters. Among the non-carceral safety investments that the Treasury Department explicitly highlighted as encouraged uses of ARP's Fiscal Recovery Funds are:
For more information on how to use American Rescue Plan Act funds to promote community safety, see Civil Rights Corps' Guide to Using Fiscal Recovery Grants to Advance Holistic Safety. And for a detailed picture of how large cities and counties are deploying these funds for public safety, see Brookings Metro's Local Government ARPA Investment Tracker. We have a window of opportunity to promote genuine public safety The research on what helps keep communities safe—including clean air, safe streets, and well-maintained public spaces—has never been clearer. And with the window of opportunity these new federal investments have opened, there has never been a better time to act. State and local lawmakers must harness these funds in ways that move us forward and create the holistic, life-affirming safety interventions that all people deserve. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Lessons from the Cape Town water crisis and the need for a renewed technical agenda. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment