EPA staffers go to Hill over global warming

from the December 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p02s01-uspo.html

Dissatisfied with the agency's greenhouse-gas emissions program, labor leaders are pleading for congressional intervention.

By Peter N. Spotts Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

This week, labor leaders representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency scientists, engineers, and staff have asked Congress to hold aggressive oversight hearings on the agency's own greenhouse-gas emissions programs.

Under the Bush administration's voluntary approach, the labor leaders' petition says, the agency isn't doing enough to encourage the use of current technology to control carbon-dioxide emissions, the leading cause of human-induced climate change. In fact, the time for a voluntary program is over, the leaders say.

"The science is too clear and the consequences are too grave" to continue down the path the administration is following, says William Hirzy, an EPA senior scientist currently on a teaching assignment at American University. He's vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union chapter that represents employees at EPA headquarters in Washington.

The labor leaders, who are presidents of the EPA's 22 union locals, also called on lawmakers to ensure that agency experts are allowed to speak freely and openly about global warming with the public and Congress "without fear of reprisal."

In addition, the petition, which was sent to two key Capitol Hill committees, asks lawmakers to "support a vigorous program of enforcement and reduction in GHG [greenhouse-gas] emissions."

The administration has held that regulating CO2 is outside the agency's purview. Indeed, this week, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a suit against the EPA over this issue. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre argued that Congress never gave the EPA authority to regulate CO2. Even if the agency had the authority, he continued, "now is not the time to exercise such authority, in light of the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change and the ongoing studies to address those uncertainties."

The petition's drafters say they originally planned to release the document in a few weeks, on the eve of the new, Democratically led Congress. But they opted to send the document to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week as the high court heard oral arguments on the issue.

This is not the first time EPA's unions have flagged issues that some members reportedly have difficulty raising through bureaucratic channels. And it's unclear how deep the petition's sentiments run through the agency's rank and file. "We can't say it's 100 percent," Dr. Hirzy acknowledges.

Still, the unions represent the only safe avenue for career scientists and engineers to speak out, according to Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. In 2005, he explains, the US Supreme Court held that public employees couldn't rely on the First Amendment to shield them from retaliation if they blew the whistle on unethical or illegal activities on the job.

The petition comes at a time when speculation is rising in Washington that President Bush may substantially modify his approach to carbon emissions. In press interviews, some administration officials have hinted that Mr. Bush is preparing to unveil new energy and climate policies, perhaps in his State of the Union message early next year.

Some analysts say that the White House has polled energy companies, asking: What's your bottom line on possible regulations? In October, the head of Shell Oil, speaking at the National Press Club, said that a patchwork of state rules would be too hard to deal with, and that a national program is needed.

"You've got different dynamics at play," and the logical place to look for a new position would be the State of the Union address, says John Stanton, vice president of the National Environmental Trust.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

On road to clean fuels, automakers cover some ground

from the December 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p01s03-stct.html

By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
LOS ANGELES

Friday's opening of the international Los Angeles Auto Show will feature the usual leggy models draped across carnauba-waxed chassis. It will showcase the usual engine housings, gleaming under spotlights, and futuristic dashboards twinkling like front-yard Christmas displays.

But if this show is any indication, the world's automakers are signaling that they know business as usual won't cut it in a market beset by rising oil prices and consumer concern about emissions' role in global warming - and that the hunt is on for the next-generation fuel.

More than any time since the early '70s, automakers are thinking and designing "green," say many industry analysts. The trend is not moving as fast as environmental activists or most climate scientists would like - as protests here make clear - but it also may not be as slow as some critics claim.

Electric vehicles, gasoline-electric hybrids, diesels, and flex-fuel and hydrogen-powered cars are inching up the consumer on-ramp at a faster pace, judging from world debuts of 21 alternative-fuel vehicles.

"It sort of feels like the early part of the 20th century, when everyone was trying to figure out whether to go with steam or electricity or gasoline," says Gavin Conway, editor in chief of Automobile Magazine. "People are saying, 'Do we go with electric, hybrids, diesel, or what?' "

General Motors Corp., for its part, is stirring several alternative-fuel pots. The world's largest automaker will make a plug-in hybrid sport-utility vehicle (which can run on gasoline or on stored electricity obtained by plugging into a standard electrical outlet) that will be double the fuel efficiency of any existing SUV, CEO Rick Wagoner told reporters Wednesday during the show's media preview. The company also plans to expand hybrid models to include Saturn and Chevrolet Malibu sedans in 2007, he said, and will offer Hummers with an engine fueled by biofuels by 2009.

"It's highly unlikely that oil alone is going to supply all of the world's rapidly growing automotive energy requirements," said Mr. Wagoner. "For the global auto industry, this means that we must - as a business necessity - develop alternative sources of propulsion based on alternative sources of energy."

In the US, where gasoline prices remain lower than in Europe, consumer consciousness nonetheless seems to have turned a corner, say Wagoner and others. Recent events figure into interest in other fuels: the partial loss of US oil production after hurricane Katrina, rising public awareness during the Iraq war of the perils of foreign-oil dependence, and soaring energy demands of China and India, which are driving up world oil prices. Perhaps trumping them all is consumers' increased public concern about global warming.

"Because of all these events, the overriding concern this year is the environment - finding ways of not burning carbon-based fuels," says Mr. Conway. GM's effort to present itself in a greener light, he says, is a bid to recover from falling sales - down in the US 9.4 percent through October compared with the same period last year.

Trying to learn from past false starts, designers are working to better meld consumers' competing demands for environmental friendliness (gas economy, low emissions), sex appeal (power, speed), and practicality (roominess, versatility).

Two cars getting early buzz here are BMW's Hydrogen 7, the German automaker's latest alternative-fuel vehicle modified to run on gas and liquid hydrogen, and the Mercedes BlueTec diesel, the first to meet California's air-quality standards, the most stringent in the world.
"Manufacturers are getting better at building cars that are fast and good- looking, not some tree-hugging penalty box," says Angus MacKenzie, editor in chief of Motor Trend Magazine.
"The momentum is building for designs and technology that will address [a] consumer's concerns for air quality and the cost of oil without giving up his concerns about acceleration, style, drive, and practicality."

As the show opens to the public Friday, activist and scientific groups aim to get out their view that car companies could go much further than they have. Many single out the industry's continued focus on hydrogen-fuel prototypes, which are years from mass production and have little or no infrastructure to support them in the way of hydrogen fueling stations.

"All these ecoprototypes are well and good, but they don't begin to address the crisis of America's oil addiction," says Sarah Connolly of the Zero Emissions Campaign of the Rainforest Action Network.

Others applaud incremental advances on display, such as the 2007 Ford Expedition's six-speed automatic transmission that enables the SUV to get an extra mile per gallon over the four-speed model.

But no single automaker is using enough advanced technologies in one car to increase mileage by the 10 miles per gallon needed to dent US dependence on foreign oil, says Jason Mark of the Union of Concerned Scientists. An average advance of 10 m.p.g. across the US would amount to a savings of 2.3 million barrels of oil a day - the equivalent of current oil imports from the Persian Gulf, he says.

But manufacturers must take into account what people will buy, says an industry representative. A vehicle with the kinds of low emissions and fuel efficiency Mr. Mark envisions would have to sacrifice speed, size, acceleration, or design - all the ingredients that excite buyers, says Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade association of nine top automakers. In every state, sales of light trucks, vans, pickups, and minivans outsold passenger cars last year.

"The industry is moving toward cleaner, safer, more efficient vehicles," he says, "but we can't get too far ahead of our buyers."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Portraits of the homeless

from the November 22, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1122/p13s01-legn.html

A photo class turned outreach program is a lesson in lens, light, ethics, and service.

By Stacy A. Teicher Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

For people struggling to scrape together enough money to afford a place to live, posing for family portraits can seem like a luxury. But at a homeless shelter in San Jose, Calif., people had the opportunity this fall to gather in front of the camera lens and flash their best smiles.

On the other side of the camera were students from a Santa Clara University photo class - who had been learning not only about lighting and shutter speeds but also about ethics and service and the power of images to tug on society's conscience.

"It was a moment, you know - it just brightened up our day," says Miguel Garcia, who posed with his wife, Christina, and their children, Rosa and Michael Ray. For the past month, the family has spent nights at the Community Homeless Alliance Ministry (CHAM) shelter in San Jose's First Christian Church. The Santa Clara students volunteered there and at other shelters, bonding with the children well before portrait day. "They had their heart in it; I could feel that," Mr. Garcia says.

Soon the students will deliver prints to the residents, who plan to send them off to relatives or tuck them away until they can hang the portraits on walls of their own. Starting in January, some portraits will be on display at the university's de Saisset Museum, which will also host a panel discussion about homelessness.

"It's a powerful tool for awareness-raising," says Diane Nilan, a longtime advocate for homeless children and author of "Crossing the Line: Taking Steps to End Homelessness." The camaraderie and mentoring that students and other volunteers offer to children at homeless shelters is "a gift that kids talk about years later," she says. "We all treasure being recognized. Kids in a homeless situation aren't any different, it's just that they don't get that recognition as often as they need it."

Courses that link academic work and community service are on the rise. Campus Compact (a coalition of more than 1,000 colleges and universities that embrace a civic mission) reports that 98 percent of member schools offer service-learning, up from 91 percent a few years ago. These campuses offer an average of 35 such courses each.

Photography instructor Renee Billingslea found her inspiration through the Sixth Street Photography Workshop in San Francisco, which teaches photography to homeless and low-income people and exhibits their work. She and the museum curator decided to bring Sixth Street's traveling exhibit to Santa Clara and complement it with a service-learning course.

The 14 students in her class studied the work of photographers such as Lewis Hine, who documented child labor in the early 1900s, and Dorothea Lange, who turned her lens on Depression-era families. "They're learning how the camera can be a very powerful tool," Ms. Billingslea says.

In the first few weeks of volunteering at the shelters, she asked the students not to bring cameras, but simply to provide services and to observe and listen. Students also turned in journal entries, allowing Billingslea to see their gradual shift from apprehension to empathy and understanding. For many in the class, this was their first exposure to homeless shelters.

In phone interviews with the Monitor, students and residents shared their experiences.
Freshman Ben Thompson says his view of homelessness has changed. "I used to walk down the streets and if I came by a homeless person, I would keep my head straight and not acknowledge them.... I've learned not to do that - they are people, and sometimes they just want to talk."

At the CHAM shelter, students took the younger children out for pizza and helped them make picture frames out of popsicle sticks. By portrait day, the students were a familiar presence.

But Mr. Thompson realized that a few weeks of volunteering wasn't enough to win all the residents over to having their portraits taken. "We'd walk by [some families we knew] and ask if they were coming to the portrait day, and they'd just completely ignore us," he says. Though disappointed, he understood why people might hesitate to be on display under the label "homeless."

"Students have become part of our ministry," says Pastor Scott Wagers. He founded CHAM in 1997 and has been on a mission ever since to prompt community leaders in Silicon Valley to find solutions to the problem of "poverty amid plenty." His shelter serves just a fraction of the estimated 7,600 homeless people in Santa Clara County; it sits next door to a new city hall that cost San Jose more than $350 million.

"I've seen the homeless put off before [by people who] ... think that they understand homelessness," Pastor Wagers says. But the students "come in truly wanting to learn." Along with class discussions, each student developed his or her own 10-point ethics policy for photography.

With guidance from experienced photographers from Sixth Street, the students "really captured the images of the beautiful people who live in the church," Wagers says.

Phillip Romero, who posed with his wife, Michelle, and their four sons, says they appreciated the opportunity. "We don't have money to take pictures as a family." In fact, it had been so long since he'd had his photo taken that "it kinda had me shy for a minute," he says. But the children were excited, and even took pictures themselves.

The family had tried shelters in at least four towns before settling on CHAM. Now the kids are registered in school and Mr. Romero is in a program that combines work and education. When the prints arrive, "I'm going to send a lot of them home to my mom and my stepdad so they can put them away for me," he says.

Leyna Roget, a senior who's studying art and film, says she realized during this project how much she takes family photos for granted. She wants visitors to the exhibit to think about homelessness in a new way. "People see homelessness as a strange kind of thing. You hope [this brings out] the happiness in the family interaction, the normalcy of it all," she says. And then she hopes it prompts questions about society: "Why don't they have a home? Shouldn't they? What's wrong with that picture?"

The positive effects of service-learning courses ripple beyond the classroom. In San Jose, press coverage of the portrait day prompted the Creative Memories company to donate scrapbooks.
"I'm planning on continuing photography, and I'd like to do it to help with social issues if I can," Thompson says. He also wants to keep volunteering at CHAM. "It would be kind of a bummer to just stop because the quarter is over."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

'Angel' investors have nerves of steel, hearts of gold

from the November 27, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1127/p12s02-wmgn.html

These venture capitalists are in it for profit - and social change.

By G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Carol Atwood knows the pain that ethical investing can sometimes cause to a person's bank account. But she's not about to start separating money from mission.

Shortly after the dotcom bust of 2000, Ms. Atwood of Sudbury, Mass., helped bankroll a start-up Internet company that promoted wellness among visitors to its website. A couple years later, the struggling firm accepted a "fire sale" buyout offer that brought her new stock, not cash, and underscored a bleak reality: "I could break even at best. I could also lose money."

Her mettle as an "angel" investor in the risky world of socially conscious private equity was about to be tested.

But rather than flee, Atwood has signed on to six more deals. Investors like Atwood typically supply anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 initially and kick in more cash within a few years. Why does she do it? She says she sees potential in fledgling firms, not only for profit, but also for social change.

Plus, "It's just darn fun to make personal decisions and get to see these companies grow," she says. A lot of investors like her, she says, are prudent people who sometimes "can't help themselves. They meet a manager whom they're really impressed with, and they throw caution to the wind."

Being prepared to lose every penny wagered on a high-minded venture, it turns out, is a defining trait for this breed of ethical investors. It was one of several common attributes on display at the Boston Harbor Hotel earlier this month when about 170 ethically motivated, accredited investors (you had to be worth more than $1 million or earning more than $200,000 per year) gathered for a semiannual venture fair.

The trappings of this rarefied event suggested the power of Investors Circle, a network of angel investors who finance early-stage start-ups. All day, it seemed, signs of investors' social impact were as close and concrete as the nearest refreshments. During breaks, participants drank eight-ounce bottles of Adina strawberry hibiscus juice, a product supported by at least one IC member with a soft spot for preserving an endangered Senegalese tradition. At lunch, they dined on cooked shrimp from an eco-friendly fish farm, served courtesy of cash-seeking entrepreneurs at San Francisco-based CleanFish.

Though most ethical investors lack the deep pockets of this crowd, attendees said many of the attitudes and strategies utilized in this arena are apt to breed success in other domains as well. First rule: On bold ventures with big promise and big risks, invest only as much as you can afford to lose. Second rule: Get familiar with the person who runs the company before putting down a penny.

"You've got to have somebody really good at the top. It's essential," says Willy Osborn, investment manager at Commons Capital, a Boston-based venture capital firm that concentrates on clean energy, education, environment, and healthcare sectors.

Before investing, he asks a battery of questions to assess the CEO's intelligence, knowledge of technical and market considerations, and track record for managing high performers.

That approach has paid off. After getting comfortable with the CEO of solar panel manufacturer Evergreen Solar, Mr. Osborn "got in early" at what is now a $500 million company.

Atwood says she's ready to reap rewards in coming months, to the tune of about 18 percent per year, from a financial services venture that grew from her trust in a manager who impressed her.

John Fullerton, CEO of Alerian Capital Management in New York City and a former banker at J.P. Morgan, looks for more than competence and smarts in an entrepreneur. He likes to see a track record of at least one prior success, but emotional connections count as well.

"I certainly won't invest in an entrepreneur unless I feel a relationship connection that's deeper than just, you know, 'You've got a business. I've got some money. You want my money. I want a certain return. Good luck,' " Mr. Fullerton says. He relies largely on face-to-face meetings to assess whether the entrepreneur shares his values and embodies the attributes of "commitment, passion, dedication, willingness to walk through walls."

"I look to what they've done in their lives," Fullerton continues, "to validate that those characteristics are there."

Fullerton brings his strategy to bear on advancing small-scale agriculture. He's backed Adina, the Senegalese-themed beverage concern, as well as a Quechee, Vt., diner that serves only locally grown food. But ethically driven investing in start-ups constitutes just a fraction of his portfolio - the fraction he can afford to lose. Otherwise, he's diversified and favors the energy sector, including both alternative sources and lots of oil-related ventures, which have served him well in recent years.

Fullerton's approach departs from the philosophy of most socially responsible mutual funds, which argue that investors reap strong returns over the long term by sticking exclusively with social high achievers. In his view, the socially minded enterprise of backing high-risk ventures falls somewhere between investing for profit and philanthropy.

Others here take a more hard-nosed approach.

Osborn, for instance, has no philanthropic intentions in this domain, no matter how lofty a company's vision may be.

"It better make business sense, or we won't invest in it," he says. "I want these companies to be the best businesses they can be." They will need to show profits and good growth prospects, he says, "if they're going to attract more investors down the line," both to buy out his position and also to remain viable in their social missions.

As the three-day event unfolds, investors put their principles into practice. They listen to entrepreneurs' pitches and business plans: The maker of a new wind-turbine system, for instance, stirs a lot of comment as "clean tech" has become the year's hot sector.

After hearing presentations, investors form a circle and discuss: Has anyone seen something like this before? Is the technology solid? Is what they're being told too good to be true?

For Michael Finney of San Francisco, the setting is familiar. He hears about 200 pitches a year and invests in fewer than five. After considering the options here, he says he may invest something - less than 1 percent of his portfolio - in CleanFish.

"I wanted to find something that's going to get big fast," Mr. Finney says. In return for his considerable risk, he's hoping to earn about 20 percent annually. He also feels good about the project because, in his opinion, dwindling fish stocks show "the state of the fishing industry is a real time bomb" and sustainable fish farms, along with a network of family fishing operations, seem to bode well.

When all is said and done, only about 5 percent of meeting attendees will write a check to a presenting company, according to Brian Dunn, a San Francisco-based consultant to investors and an Investors Circle member who directed the organization from 1999 through 2001.

Investors say the rewards begin long before the money starts coming back in, which may take five or more years down the line. In Atwood's case, fun is enhanced by meaningfulness. For instance, by funding IW Financial based in Portland, Maine, she helped develop a software tool that lets financial planners screen companies across a variety of social and environmental criteria.

"I am incredibly proud of the fact that I have invested in a tool that allows people to act on their commitments," Atwood says. "There are fewer polluting big companies because of my small investment."

Osborn likewise feels that by investing early in companies that put positive tools in others' hands, he's heightening his own impact exponentially.

"We're not buying solar panels and putting them on houses," Osborn says. "We're buying shares in companies that are going to scale up and put millions of solar panels on houses."

For smaller investors looking for lessons from this arena, Mr. Dunn suggests thinking like an angel investor or venture capitalist. Growing cities, for example, will need new supplies of clean water.

"Somebody is going to make a lot of money off that, and it might as well be you," Dunn says.
"Start by figuring out what you think is going to happen in macroeconomic trends," Dunn continues. "Then trace that back to specific industries, specific companies, and specific management teams within those industries.... That way, you're still going to make money and get the [psychological] return of knowing that you're money is doing what you want it to do."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

America the charitable: a few surprises

from the November 27, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1127/p01s01-usec.html

By Mark Trumbull Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Everybody knows Americans are big givers. But their charitable impulses keep generating surprises.

Consider just a few conclusions from recent research:

• Charitable giving plays an even larger role in the economy than is suggested by some $260 billion in annual contributions. Each dollar of giving appears to create $19 of extra national income, according to a book released this past weekend.

• Demand for nonprofit services gets proportionately bigger, not smaller, as a locality's income rises, a Federal Reserve economist finds.

• The philanthropy of the wealthy may not hinge on tax incentives to the degree many believe. In one new survey, a majority of wealthy givers say they would contribute the same amount if the estate tax were abolished. Ditto, they said, if they could no longer deduct the value of gifts from their taxable income.

These disparate studies are shedding light not just on who gives but also on why they give and what their actions mean to society. Often, the conclusions run counter to expectations.

"This is supposed to be the start of a conversation. It's the first word, not the last word," says Arthur Brooks, referring to his new book on charity, called "Who Really Cares." "We need more people thinking about [the study of charitable giving] in a serious way."

He and other experts say that by understanding charity better, Americans can learn how to encourage more giving. The result would probably be a healthier and wealthier society.

Of course, it's not as if American philanthropy has never been studied before. A number of institutions track the nonprofit sector full-time in one way or another. But the data on charity-linked activities are far less complete - and less systematically analyzed - than for areas such as government and private industry.

One thing that's long been known: The US leads the world in levels of charitable activity. The pattern runs from the rich, steeped in long tradition of philanthropy, to the poor. Those making $20,000 or less a year give away more, as a share of their income, than do higher income groups.

Americans donate their time as well as money - some $150 billion worth annually (measured by using an estimated average value of $18.04 per hour).

"I see a great commitment," says Karen Rivers, who recruits helpers for the Colorado branch of Volunteers of America in Denver. "We just were inundated with people who wanted to volunteer for Thanksgiving Day."

She had to turn volunteers away as the group served holiday meals to about 3,000 homeless and others in need.

Some experts see charity as a defining trait of the US, more than consumerism or business. But those forces may be intertwined.

For one thing, many nonprofits are selling services - from healthcare to classical music - in a marketplace alongside for-profit rivals. By many measures, they are successful.

For example: As personal incomes rise in a given county, the income of nonprofits seems to rise even faster, says Rob Grunewald, an associate economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has analyzed counties in 47 states. This suggests that not-for-profit activities are what economists call a "superior good," something people want to buy more of (or donate more to) as their incomes rise.

But ties between charitable ventures and the economy hardly end there.

In his new book, Dr. Brooks points to evidence that charity is no mere peripheral activity. It pays off for society in ways that may transcend the rates of return on many traditional investments. Why?

It's not just that charity helps those on the receiving end, says Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University in New York. It also strengthens the cohesion of society at large. Moreover, it appears to make the givers themselves more successful, possibly because the activity transforms them somewhat into better or happier people. Whatever the reasons, he finds that higher income tends to push up charity - and that greater charity tends to push up income.

Another provocative conclusion is that conservatives are better givers than liberals - a theme that is likely to draw close scrutiny. This pattern is less about politics, he says, than about charity-linked lifestyles that are most common to people who call themselves conservatives: religious commitment, marriage and children, and entrepreneurship.

Still, Brooks's main point is that more Americans, regardless of ideology, should embrace giving as a tool for progress. He quotes Proverbs: "One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty."

Many who do charitable work can relate to that. Pier Penic works in public relations, but her passion is what she does for free as the founder of Culture at Home, a support group near Washington, D.C., for mothers who are home-schooling their kids. "I'm doing more here than I would at a corporate job," she says. "I love to see results."

Her story echoes some of the common forces that motivate people to give time or money to charity: First, she identifies with challenges facing home-school moms. In her case, the feeling is amplified because she herself is one of those moms. Second, she wants to make a difference. Third, she draws satisfaction from the effort to help.

These forces are among the core motivations that foster actions of generosity beyond the sphere of one's family circle, says Paul Schervish, who heads the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. "There would still be a need for philanthropy, even if our economic needs were all taken care of."

The urge to make a difference, and to take satisfaction in it, outweighs monetary considerations. For example, a survey of 945 ultrarich individuals released last month by Bank of America and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that slightly more than half would give the same amount regardless of whether the estate tax or deductions for charitable giving were repealed.

None of this means that tax policy is trivial for charitable giving. But the survey suggests that Americans' penchant for giving isn't driven primarily by tax breaks.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Rising price of the war on terror

from the November 21, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p01s03-usmi.html

With the Iraq war and clashes in Afghanistan grinding on, the cost to the US budget is $500 billion and still mounting.

By Peter Grier Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

Whether troop levels increase in coming months, or decrease, or stay the same, one aspect of the US military effort in Iraq is unlikely to change: It will be expensive.

The cost of combat in Iraq has now surpassed $300 billion, according to government estimates. Add in activities in Afghanistan, and the total price of the global war on terror is about $500 billion, making it one of the most monetarily costly conflicts in which the nation has ever engaged.

Now the Department of Defense is in the process of drawing up its follow-on request for the remainder of FY 2007. Reports indicate that the Pentagon could ask for $120 billion to $160 billion, which would be its largest funding request yet for the global war on terror.

After they take control of Congress next year, Democrats will almost certainly investigate both the rate of Iraq spending and the manner in which it has been appropriated. Much of the war has been funded through supplementals, so-called emergency bills whose use in this case has become increasingly controversial in Congress.

"We're now at $507 billion for the global war on terror and counting, and almost all of that has been pushed through a process that doesn't give proper scrutiny to the budget. Are we spending it wisely?" says Gordon Adams, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center who was the senior White House official for national security budgets under President Clinton.

Last month, Congress approved $70 billion in spending intended to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the first six months of fiscal 2007, which began Oct. 1 for the US government.

The size of the request under discussion reflects both the continued nature of the mission and past wear-and-tear. Both the Army and the Air Force need billions to replace expensive hardware worn out by the pace of warfare in Iraq.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the White House estimated that combat operations there would cost about $50 billion. That forecast, however, was based on a quick end to the war and a rapid drawdown of US troops.

Three years later, Iraq alone is costing the US some $8 billion a month.

Estimates of total spending vary, due to the fact that Department of Defense records on obligations do not provide comprehensive specifics, and the supplemental bills voted by Congress do not have the line-item details of regular sending bills.

Congressional Research Service figures puts the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other war-on-terror activities at $507 billion. Of that, the Afghan campaign has cost at least $88 billion, according to CRS. Iraq accounts for the bulk of the rest.

The drain of continued fighting in Iraq has meant that the global war on terror has steadily moved up the list of the most costly conflicts in US history (in terms of money, not casualties). In 2005, it passed the Korean war's inflation-adjusted cost of $361 billion.

Next year it will almost certainly pass the Vietnam War's $531 billion, making it the second most expensive US war ever, behind World War II.

Given the uncertainty of troop levels, it is very difficult to estimate the US military's future costs in Iraq.

Overall, each individual soldier deployed in Iraq for a year costs about $275,000, according to CRS. The cost rises to $360,000 if required additional investments in equipment and facilities are added.

Using a scenario in which US troop levels fall to 73,000 by 2010, and then stay at that level, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cumulative cost of the global war on terror could reach $808 billion by 2016.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon and the Bush administration have continued the practice by which funding for the war on terror is requested in the form of supplemental appropriations.
Supplementals are prepared much closer to the time when the money will actually be spent.
The Vietnam War, for instance, was funded via supplementals at its outset. Later, Vietnam costs were folded into the regular budget process.

Supplementals provide much less detail as to where money will be spent than do regular budget documents, and receive less congressional oversight than do regular budget bills.

So far, the White House has shown little inclination to fund Iraq and Afghanistan via the regular budget, despite some pressure from Congress to do so. In addition, the nature of items paid for via these war spending bills may have begun to expand, to include items related to peacetime missions as well.

A Democratic-controlled Congress will almost certainly look for ways to increase pressure on the White House to abandon the flexibility and opaqueness of the emergency bill approach.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Women's report card for 2006 vote

from the November 21, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p03s03-uspo.html

They were pivotal voters and will hold a record number of seats in Congress - but equality still lags.

By Linda Feldmann Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

When the winners of the Nov. 7 elections are sworn in in January, Democratic women - and some Republicans - will have cause to cheer: The House will have its first female speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D) of California. Congress will have its largest corps of women ever - 16 in the Senate and at least 71 in the House, from both parties.

And in the states, women will hold nine governorships, tied with the record set in 2004, and other elective statewide jobs that could position them for higher office. Sarah Palin (R) will become Alaska's first woman governor. For the first time, the chair of the National Governors Association will be a woman, Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) of Arizona.

In state legislatures, a record 2,426 women were general-election candidates, and unofficial results show 1,735 winning, which would be a record. In addition, women appear set to build on their record number of top leadership spots in state legislatures.

Women voters were also pivotal this year. While a majority of both women and men nationwide voted Democratic on Nov. 7 - 56 percent of women and 51 percent of men - the gender gap proved decisive for Democrats in a handful of key Senate races.

In Virginia, where Democrat Jim Webb beat Republican incumbent George Allen by a fraction of a percent, 55 percent of women voted for Mr. Webb versus 45 percent of men. In particular, it was women of color who made the difference.

In Montana, where race was not a factor, 52 percent of women voted for the Democrat, Jon Tester, versus 48 percent of men. Mr. Tester beat incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (R) by just a few thousand votes.

In Missouri, 51 percent of women voted for Democrat Claire McCaskill, who beat incumbent Sen. Jim Talent (R), while only 46 percent of men did. As in Virginia, it was African-American women who made the difference.

Was this another Year of the Woman? Not exactly. Back in 1992, women made stunning gains, jumping from 32 to 54 House members and from two to six senators. Since then, the gains have been steady. The Senate is now at a record 16 women, and women in the House have averaged an increase of one or two seats per year. This year, the increase in the House was a little larger than usual - at least four seats. (In Louisiana, the Dec. 9 runoff between two Democrats, Rep. William Jefferson and challenger Karen Carter, could put another woman in the House. In Florida, Vern Buchanan (R) was certified the winner Monday in his tight race against Democrat Christine Jennings, but Ms. Jennings is suing.)

Ultimately, women remain far from achieving equality. In the next Congress, the record 87 women members will represent 16 percent of the 535 seats. In state legislatures, women currently hold 1,686 of the 7,382 seats, or 22.8 percent. In statewide elective executive office - positions such as governor, attorney general, and secretary of state - women hold 78 of the 315 positions, or 24.8 percent. (The figure will drop to 76 in January.)

The key, say women political activists, is that most of the numbers continue to head upward. "And certainly, 2006 is the year of the woman leader," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, pointing to Ms. Pelosi and the incoming state legislative leaders. In addition, California's two Democratic woman senators will chair committees starting in January, with Dianne Feinstein running the Rules Committee and Barbara Boxer running Environment and Public Works.

At EMILY's List, a political action committee that helps Democratic woman candidates who support abortion rights, 2006 was by far the group's busiest year. The group endorsed, funded, and advised a record number of candidates, including 19 women who were Democratic nominees for Republican-held House seats. Of those, 16 were in races considered competitive by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. So far, with four races still undecided, only two women have won, a point that has raised eyebrows. Among the 36 Democratic men running in competitive, Republican-held districts, 22 won.

Many of the most highly touted EMILY's List candidates - including Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Diane Farrell of Connecticut, and Lois Murphy of Pennsylvania - did not win.

Did gender play a role in any of the races? Officials at EMILY's List say it's impossible to say, but they are now analyzing each contest in depth. Three of the still-undecided races involve two woman candidates, so gender could not be a factor there. On a Seattle Times blog, debate raged last week over why Democratic challenger Darcy Burner lost narrowly to Rep. David Reichert (R). Times reporters cited e-mails from Ms. Burner, who suggested that being female hurt her - especially at a time of war.

Woman political activists say that the big picture is what counts - and in the end, a record number of women will take seats in Congress come January. The increasing ranks of women at lower levels of government mean that the farm team for future, higher-level races is growing, they add.

Still, building toward gender equality remains a steep climb. "If it were easy to get women elected, we wouldn't need to exist," says Ramona Oliver, a spokeswoman for EMILY's List. "And trying to get newcomers elected on top of that is probably the toughest job in politics."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Behind talk of a new draft: equity

from the November 22, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1122/p01s01-uspo.html

Congressman Rangel backs conscription, but he is finding few takers on Capitol Hill.

By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The burden of war is never equitable.

Thousands of American troops have been killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many thousands more will bring home at least some of that burden. But most Americans experience no direct or even indirect cost of a war soon to last longer than World War II.
Would reinstituting the military draft even things out, spreading the responsibility while influencing politicians to think twice before sending men and women into harm's way?

Rep. Charles Rangel (D) of New York thinks so. Challenging Iran and North Korea as well as increasing the US force level in Iraq to try to stem the heightened violence there can't be done without a draft, says Mr. Rangel, a Korean War combat vet. He has dusted off his proposal to bring back conscription, which was suspended in 1973.

Rangel's bill is unlikely to go far in Congress, where opposition reflects public opinion. But his proposal does raise important questions about how the armed forces are put together today and how the US military operates.

"I do think we need a draft," says Charles Moskos, military sociologist and professor emeritus at Northwestern University. "Our country is experiencing what I call 'patriotism lite.' Nobody's willing to sacrifice anything. We don't even have gas rationing. Congress votes to go to war, but won't send its own children. We don't have enough troops. We've used reservists and the National Guard in an unprecedented manner."

Then there's the element of economic and social privilege as relates to military service today, says Dr. Moskos. In his 1958 Princeton University class of 750 men, more than 400 served in the military, he says, including many who went on to distinguished careers in business, education, and government. In Princeton's most recent graduating class of about 1,100 men and women, nine entered the military.

"These are not by any means bottom-of-the-barrel soldiers today," says Moskos, who was drafted into the Army after graduation. "But they are working-class and lower-middle-class young men and women."

In congressional testimony last week Army Gen. John Abizaid, top commander of US forces in the Middle East, acknowledged that former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was right when he said at the beginning of the war that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. But General Abizaid also said that increasing troop levels in Iraq now, as Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona and others have called for, would put "a tremendous strain" on the military. Most military experts find no legitimate reason to bring back conscription.

"A draft would induct far more people than are needed by the military if it were universal, posing the question of what to do with all the surplus draftees - a million or so," says military analyst John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org. "It would be politically very disruptive if it were a lottery with only 1 in 10 getting called."

Even should there be a draft, it would take many months before new draftees could begin to fill the need in Iraq, says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, senior fellow at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Quaker lobby in Washington.

First, there would be prolonged congressional debate, likely followed by legal challenges over exemptions and the general fairness of the system, says Colonel Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam War veteran. Then it would take more time to develop training programs and produce equipment.

"These are the practical constraints," he adds. "Sociologically, I don't think the country will stand for reinstituting the draft over a threat that is not mortal."

There are philosophical and ethical issues involved as well.

A draft "contradicts the principles of a free society by coercing people to fight for freedom," says Ivan Eland, national security analyst at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. "Soldiers who want to be in the military do a better job than those who don't, and the military services know it."

As with Vietnam, public concern about the possibility of conscription is useful to those who oppose the Iraq war.

"It seems to me the issue is about making it more difficult for policymakers to use the military instrument without full support of the American public," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner.

Retired US Naval Reserve Capt. John Allen Williams agrees.

"Rangel's bringing it up for political reasons," says Dr. Williams, a professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago. "But you know what? He's right. If we have some mechanism that links the military to civilian society in a way that spreads the burden around when you use the military, it's less likely to be used. On the other hand, once it is used it's more likely to be used in a total way - people are going to want to get it over with."

Military sociologist Moskos's answer is a three-tier system of required public service for all young men and women: uniformed military service, homeland security jobs (guarding borders, ports, nuclear plants, and other sites), or civilian tasks such as teaching in poor neighborhoods and helping the elderly.

No school loans or other education benefits should be awarded unless the recipient serves in one of those three areas for a year or two, says Moskos.

Still, at this point in a drawn-out war with no clear light at the end of the political and military tunnel, a return to the draft seems unlikely.

"It is too late to win popular support for conscription," says Loren Thompson, a national security expert at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "The public has turned against the war.
Proposing a draft now will simply hasten the collapse of domestic support for the war effort."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Congress's pragmatic newcomers

from the November 24, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1124/p01s01-uspo.html

Capitol Hill freshmen promise practicality over party loyalty.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

From time to time, a freshman class in Congress leaves its mark on Capitol Hill. There were the reform-minded Watergate babies of 1974. More recently came the GOP insurgent "citizen legislators" of '94.

Now, the class of '06, too, has been elected on a surge of voter discontent, and although the new class isn't as big as those two, it has the potential to leave its own stamp.

If interviews with incoming freshmen are any indication, that mark will be pragmatism first, even at the expense of party loyalty, and a get-things-done sensibility.

This pragmatic tone is good news for moderates in both parties, who have been marginalized in the past few Congresses.

Rising again is the Blue Dog Coalition, which moderate Democrats formed in 1994 to steer their party back to an agenda of fiscal restraint and national security after they lost control of the House of Representatives.

"It's the largest freshman class the Blue Dogs ever had," says Eric Wortman, a spokesman for the coalition.

The group is also likely to wield more power in the new Congress. "With 44 votes, we'll have a voice in what comes to the floor and, if not, in what passes," says Rep. Mike Ross (D) of Arkansas, communications director for the Blue Dog Coalition and a third-term lawmaker.

"We're going to do our part to govern from the middle. The message [voters] sent is that they want us to put an end to partisan bickering and get something done for the American people," he adds. "The freshmen seem to fit in very well.... They get the issues."

Changing winds in Washington

With the Democratic edge in both the House and Senate still relatively small, the new class is set to play a pivotal role on issues ranging from fiscal discipline to ending the war in Iraq.

A former Republican, Nancy Boyda (D) of Kansas campaigned on the idea that the GOP had lost touch with mainstream America, especially on the war in Iraq.

Along with Ms. Boyda, a former chemist, the new class contains a former admiral, three musicians, an ex-Washington Redskins quarterback, and a sheriff. More than half of the House freshmen are lawyers, no surprise. More than 4 in 10 have no previous experience as legislators - an unusually high percentage in an era when many lawmakers are recruited from state legislatures.

"Our class is very idealistic," says Boyda, who defeated Olympic legend and five-term GOP Rep. Jim Ryun. "There are a number of people who aren't experienced in politics and don't seem to fit into a political mold. But if we don't get the job done, we'll be kicked out of office."

In another sign that the mood is shifting on Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans sat together for the first two days of freshman orientation for the first time in years, which many newcomers welcomed.

"I didn't run on the left or on the right. I ran to solve problems," says Representative-elect Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, after orientation.

"We were told [by voters] to fix the process. I was pleased to find others who think like me," adds Mr. Sestak, a retired vice admiral and former adviser to President Clinton.

Still, with 435 House members and the rules stacked to the advantage of party leadership, it's the rare freshman class that can change the tenor of an institution.

Take the Watergate babies, for example. Elected after President Nixon's resignation in 1974, 75 freshman Democrats campaigned to clean up the culture of Washington. They launched the most sweeping internal reforms in a generation, decentralized power, ousted three longtime committee chairmen, multiplied the number of committees and the size of committee staff, and opened the House to more public scrutiny.

The 73 Republicans in the class of '94 swept the GOP back into power in the House for the first time in 42 years on a pledge to end corruption in the Congress and reduce the size of government. Reversing the reforms of the Watergate babies, they rerouted power from committees to the speaker. But their refusal to compromise with the more moderate Senate sank much of their reform agenda.

Many prominent veterans of the '94 GOP class were defeated Nov. 7, including Reps. J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, John Hostettler of Indiana, Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota, Charles Bass of New Hampshire, and Sue Kelly of New York.

Reps. Robert Ney of Ohio and Mark Foley of Florida, also members of the class of '94, resigned over wrongdoing before the election. The class of 2006 also comes to Congress with what they see as a clear mandate from voters for change - but not necessarily along partisan lines.

For many Democrats elected in previously staunch Republican districts, that means paying closer attention to the mood of constituents than falling in lockstep with national Democratic Party leadership that tends to be more liberal.

That was the thinking behind incoming Democratic Rep. Harry Mitchell's decision to attend a Blue Dog caucus last week.

"I met with the Blue Dogs. It's not what I am, but it fits my district" in Arizona, Mr. Mitchell says.

Nationally, the public wants to see bipartisanship in the next Congress, members say.

"The question is: How can we work together to do the right things for the people of America?
Only through working together, crossing partisan lines - that's what my voters told me was important," said incoming Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, who upset Mr. Hostettler.

A local sheriff who has been pegged as an early star of the 110th Congress, Mr. Ellsworth opposes gun control and abortion rights and favors strict enforcement of the nation's immigration laws.

The question of party loyalty

Congressional analysts say the pressure on the Democrats to line up with the party on key votes may prove overwhelming, even for those in traditionally conservative districts.

"Just as Democrats will try to find a few bills to make the Indiana-type moderates happy, those new freshman moderates are going to have a lot of incentive to follow the party line if they want their party to retain control in 2008," says Julian Zelizer, a historian at Boston University.

"Although some might say they don't care about staying in office, just as the 1994 freshmen said, they usually do. In a period of narrow margins, the handful of moderates will realize they have an incentive to vote with the party and obtain a victory rather than insisting on bills that would never pass their caucus and leave the Democrats with nothing to run on in 2008," he adds.

But at the same time, Democratic Party leaders are already signaling to freshmen that as important as their vote is their ability to hold onto their seats, many in traditionally Republican districts, in 2008.

"I've been told at least twice by [the Democratic] leadership since I've been here that 'representative' isn't only a title, it's a job description, and that I'd better represent my district," said Boyda, whose Kansas district gave President Bush 59 percent of the vote in 2004.

On the other side of the aisle, one of only 13 Republicans in the freshman class, incoming Rep. Mary Fallin (R) of Oklahoma says that Republicans "feel a mandate from the public that they want us to get things done."

"It's important to show people that we're Americans first, not just a party wanting to do something. If we don't earn back the confidence of voters ... all of us can be at risk," she added.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Congress's sci-tech agenda to shift under Democrats

from the November 13, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1113/p02s01-stgn.html

Global warming and stem-cell research are topics that will give bipartisanship on the Hill an early test.

By Peter N. Spotts Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

For clues to whether bipartisan cooperation in Washington will take root or disappear from the table as quickly as the china after last week's get-acquainted lunches at the White House, watch how some key science and technology issues play out.

Ordinarily, broad science goals - such as better science education or the American Competitiveness Initiative - draw bipartisan support. But there are some divisive science topics on the Democrats' early agenda - namely embryonic stem-cell research - and these highly charged science and environmental issues will be one barometer of the durability of cross-aisle cooperation.

"If this stated spirit of bipartisanship is to occur, one of the best places to look is going to be in the area of science and technology," says Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "If it doesn't occur in science and technology, I wouldn't expect that it's likely to occur elsewhere."

The potential for fractiousness exists in a number of policy areas where the ideas of the new Democratic majority differ from those of Republican lawmakers or the Bush administration.

Among them are funding for research into alternative-energy sources, what to do about global warming, the future of the space program, and charges that the Bush team has muzzled federal scientists and ignored scientific results in crafting environmental and public-health regulations.
Players who say they felt disenfranchised when GOP lawmakers dominated Capitol Hill view the Democrats' post- election ascension as an opportunity. Several environmental groups are slated to hold a joint press conference Monday laying out their collective agenda to address issues ranging from grazing on public lands and the state of national parks. They are expected to push for measures to curtail global warming that are tougher than the voluntary approaches the Bush administration has offered so far.

In the House, Democrats are identifying a series of hearings they want to hold that deal with these themes. In the Senate, Barbara Boxer (D) of California is slated to take the helm of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee. Last Thursday, in a briefing with reporters, she said she aims to draft legislation that contains elements of a California-like approach to curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. The state aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The midterm election, which unseated several moderate Republicans, gave the GOP delegation a more conservative tone, analysts say. And several incoming Democratic freshmen take conservative positions on a number of issues.

Still, some environmental groups are optimistic that their issues will at least get a hearing. At best, they will find allies among the more-conservative freshmen.

"At least on some of the environmental issues - energy security, environmental health issues, even global warming - these are not always liberal versus conservative issues," says Karen Steuer, vice president for government affairs at the National Environmental Trust in Washington. "In the last Congress, we could frequently work in a bipartisan fashion [with individual Republican lawmakers] on a fair number of environmental issues." The barriers came at the doorstep of the GOP leadership, which "refused to bring our issues to the floor for a vote," she says. "We couldn't even get an honest debate and a vote."

With a presidential election only two years away, it may be unrealistic to expect large-scale changes in science or environmental policies, several analysts say. Instead, they continue, look for oversight hearings that are more robust.

One issue expected to receive more scrutiny involves what has come to be called the GOP's war on science. Inspectors general at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are investigating allegations that political appointees have tried to muzzle scientists whose views, based on their research, run counter to Bush administration policy. In other cases, critics charge that political appointees at regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency have disregarded the best available science in crafting environmental regulations that are weaker than critics say they should be. Many states are in open revolt against the EPA's rules for emissions of mercury and particulates, for example, opting to set up their own tougher regulations.

Another area ripe for tighter oversight is NASA and the president's Vision for Space Exploration, adds Ray Williamson, with the George Washington University Space Policy Institute. In hearings before the House Committee on Science, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed support for the effort in general. But, he notes, they worry that the White House isn't giving NASA the money it needs to do the job without sacrificing other important activities.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Backstory: Greenhouse masses

from the November 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p20s01-sten.html

One New England church makes global warming a crusade - but finds sacrifice isn't always easy.

By G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
WALTHAM, MASS.

Over cider and cookies, Albert Sack is discussing the internal conflict he often feels between goodness and global warming. He is a member of a Unitarian church here that is trying to set a moral example in helping to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

As a retired electrical engineer, Mr. Sack knows global warming is a problem. But by his own admission, he isn't doing enough. He hasn't put solar panels on the roof of his ranch house. He hasn't installed the insulation he knows he should. "I'm not a big guilt person," he says. "But now I feel guilty when I leave the light on outside my door at home. I'm feeling guilty because I'm quite knowledgeable about [climate change], and I'm doing nothing - almost nothing."

Sack is hardly alone in his church's pews. Here in the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, one congregation is learning how hard it is to roll back the effects of industrialization - and to alter their lifestyles in pursuit of religious ideals.

Over the past two years, the First Parish Church, Universalist Unitarian in Waltham, Mass., has made the fight to stop global warming a core moral cause. For 21 months, members held monthly, often weekly, public discussions on the subject. Twice in October, they held free screenings of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Over the summer, they led the charge in St. Louis when the Unitarian Universalist Association adopted a landmark statement calling on everyone to make significant lifestyle changes to save the planet.

So far, however, the congregation hasn't been able to move with the speed it would like. In the church basement, two aging oil-burners convert less than three-fourths of their fuel into heat. Insulation is scarce, according to a March energy audit. Single-pane glass stretches across windows arching toward a leaky roof. Last winter, the congregation spent more than $9,800 to heat its 21,000-square-foot facility.

Proposals are in the works to help the church practice what it preaches. Among the suggestions: use compact fluorescent bulbs, switch to natural gas heat, install solar panels or even windmills on the roof.

The church also uses its 75-seat chapel, instead of the cavernous church sanctuary, for worship in the summer, when attendance is low. But the congregation hasn't yet made the move to the smaller structure in winter, which could save large sums on heating bills and cut down on emissions. "People don't like to sit as close to one another as they did back in the days when you didn't heat the church," says Susan Adams, a member of the church's Climate Change Task Force.

Indeed, preferences for privacy and convenience can make curbing greenhouse gases difficult, no matter how well-intentioned worshipers' motives. Unlike some issues, this one involves personal sacrifice rather than political compromise: According to denomination spokesperson Janet Hayes, it calls on Unitarians to question their "fear of intimacy" and "aesthetic preferences," such as living in large homes and relying on private transportation.

"The changes that we're used to asking other people to make are the changes that we have the greatest responsibility in making now because we are the most affluent," says Ms. Hayes. "We do live in the country that consumes the most. Our demographic is more likely than any other to live in the suburbs, to be large users of fossil fuels."

***

Meredith Ruland is trying hard to do her part to keep Earth from warming and the polar ice caps from melting. She buys local produce to help cut down on the emissions created by shipping corn, cucumbers, and other goods across country. She often wears gloves at home in winter so she can keep the thermostat at 60 degrees F. She believes, ardently, that a warmer planet threatens the life of many species - including humans.

But Ms. Ruland is far from feeling righteous. She still lives alone in a spacious condominium, drives alone 30 minutes each way to work, and buys fruits and vegetables from distant growers when local stocks aren't available. "I don't think many of us have gotten to the point of making real sacrifices," says Ruland.

Feelings of culpability and ineffectiveness don't dovetail easily with the Unitarian experience. The denomination proudly celebrates a history of being on the noble side of social reforms, from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights. Unitarians place great emphasis on reason and the revelations of science in fashioning a moral code. For members to see themselves now as major contributors to a problem that may threaten humanity worldwide is virtually unthinkable.

"We feel we're entitled to be part of the solution," says Susan Brown. "It's part of being a UU [Unitarian Universalist]."

On this night, members are taking their latest mission seriously as they prepare for a screening of Mr. Gore's movie. Women on the task force flash two thumbs up at one another as visitors claim almost every empty seat in the chapel. Men, clad uniformly in pullover fleece tops, smile and laugh as they discuss what to do about discouraging data on climate change.

"You can't always crucify yourself," says Bill Porter, a biochemist who dropped out of medical school because he felt medicine was contributing to an overpopulation crisis. "It's important to enjoy things," such as hiking in New Hampshire, which he almost didn't do this summer after considering the two-hour, carbon-spewing car ride.

***

Principled self-denial, inspired by the example of 19th-century naturalist and Unitarian hero Henry David Thoreau, is proving inspirational to members in their quest. Ron Adams, president of the local church's governing board, practices his version of it by wearing shorts on this brisk autumn night as temperatures dip into the low 40s - part of his ethic of braving the weather. He uses less energy at home by shunning air conditioning in summer and never pushing the thermostat above 62 degrees F. in winter.

"It makes me feel connected to the Earth," Mr. Adams says. "When the temperature changes, it should affect you.... It's feeling like life is real."

Whether such traits will make the First Parish Church and its members pioneering conservationists and help prevent the planet from turning into a heat lamp is uncertain. Deeper lifestyle changes raised in questions posed by Ms. Hayes - Must all children have their own rooms? Can't families carpool to church? - haven't been debated here yet.

A simple proposal to leave lights off during 10:30 a.m. worship, when the sun is high, shows the difficulty of making sacrifices: Senior Minister Marc Fredette doesn't want to try it for at least six months because he anticipates resistance.

Still, some members are taking small - and expensive - steps. Ms. Brown bought a used Prius, a hybrid vehicle, last year and spent $1,300 on a new energy-stingy refrigerator. The congregation will soon face its own "This Old House" dilemma: upgrade energy systems or fix a rotting steeple?

Even though many of these steps are costly, the cost of inaction may be paid in the most precious currency: moral authority on a defining social issue. "Internal systems have to change," says the Rev. Fredette, "before we can have any kind of an authentic voice in the community."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Climate change hits hard in the Australian outback

from the November 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s04-woap.html

By Nick Squires Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
BOURKE, AUSTRALIA

The once mighty Darling River, Australia's longest waterway, is dwindling by the day beneath a blazing blue sky, its sluggish waters an unhealthy shade of pea-green.

The Darling is the lifeblood of Bourke, one of Australia's most celebrated outback towns. Located in the parched west of New South Wales state, the expression "back o' Bourke" is understood by all Australians to mean in the middle of nowhere. But the town's legendary resilience has been pushed to a breaking point by six years of drought, the worst "big dry" since the British settlement of Australia in 1788.

Desperate graziers have taken to rounding up the flocks of feral goats which inhabit the scrub. Until recently dismissed as pests, they are now the only thing left to sell. The mental stress is enormous - a national mental health organization, Beyond Blue, has claimed an Australian farmer commits suicide once every four days.

The drought has prompted an intense debate in Australia about the effects of global warming and whether some areas are becoming too dry for farming. But the government, which like the US has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, insists there is no proven connection between climate change and drought.

Unless the drought breaks soon, Bourke will become "an economic and social disaster," according to a recent report published by Charles Sturt University in New South Wales.

Australia was ranked 47th out of 56 nations for its lack of willingness to deal with climate change in a study published last week by a German environmental group, Germanwatch. The US, meanwhile, ranked 53rd.

The drought is taking a heavy toll on towns across the outback, but its effect on Bourke, 485 miles north-west of Sydney, is particularly acute.

"Bourke is on the brink," concluded the report. Unlike other towns in the bush, Bourke has no mining to fall back on. Its reliance on irrigation for vast cotton fields and citrus fruit plantations also makes it vulnerable to lack of rain.

There has been no cotton crop for three years due to lack of water, and orange and tangerine orchards are withering.

The town's Aborigines have been particularly hard hit because they rely heavily on the seasonal jobs provided by agriculture.

"It's had a major impact," said Alister Ferguson, Bourke's most senior Aboriginal representative. "Families have a lot less money to spend on food and their kids."

Even the local wildlife seems exhausted. Kangaroos lie panting on a lawn in front of an office building on the outskirts of town, and a pair of emus barely manage to break into a run when startled by the side of the road.

Farmers are selling their properties, and those that remain on the land are struggling to survive financially.

Without sufficient grazing, they have had to either sell all their sheep and cattle or buy in feed at great expense. Sixty sheep and cattle ranches in the Shire of Bourke - an area about the size of Denmark - now have no animals left at all.

Graham Brown, 58, who owns a 430,000 acre farm 190 miles west of Bourke, says it is the harshest drought he has experienced.

"Our dams [reservoirs] are depleted and we're running out of water. We're holding on by the skin of our teeth, but if we don't get any rain this summer, we'll be hitting the panic button," he said.

Bourke's population has dropped in the past three years from 3,500 to less than 3,000. Shops on the main street are boarded up and houses are for sale.

"This is the worst drought white men have seen," said mayor Wayne O'Mally. "It's really testing people's resources."

Scientists disagree with those government officials who see no connection between the drought and global climate change.

"It's still not certain whether the low rainfall is a result of global warming, but certainly the increased temperatures are directly linked," said David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. "Global warming is making Australia hotter, which makes droughts more likely."

Water ecologist Peter Cullen, a board member of the National Water Commission, agreed that evidence points to the fact that Australia is getting drier as a result of global warming.

"I think there is a climate shift occurring with a drought on top of that," Professor Cullen said.
According to a poll this month, 62 per cent of the Australian public believes the government is not doing enough to address global warming.

In an apparent U-turn last week, Conservative Prime Minister John Howard said he would set up a panel to investigate the merits of a global carbon-trading scheme to reduce greenhouse gases. He had previously been profoundly skeptical of the idea.

Australia has called for a "new Kyoto," a revised framework that would include China and India in the campaign to cut greenhouse gas emissions - a call it repeated at last week's United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi and at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam, over the weekend.

As an alternative to Kyoto, Australia is promoting an Asia-Pacific initiative known as AP6, which draws together the US, China, India, Japan, and South Korea in an effort to develop technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But AP6 has been criticized as a paper tiger because it includes no targets or incentives for reducing emissions, no timetable to phase in cleaner energy technology, and no penalties for businesses that fail to do so.

The government has also been condemned for its strong support of the Australian coal industry, a prime source of greenhouse gases.

While the debate over Canberra's commitment to the fight against global warming intensifies, the people of the outback can only look to the skies and pray for a change in the hot, dry weather.

"If we don't get rain by December or January, God help us. I shudder to think what it will be like," said Sue Smith, a town councillor.

With cloudless blue skies and no significant rain forecast, some communities are turning to prayer.

About 200 Bourke locals gathered recently on an old timber wharf overlooking the Darling River in a mass prayer for rain.

The small crowd listened to sermons and sang hymns such as 'Great South Land' - "This is our nation, this is our land, this lucky country of dreams gone dry."

A prayer called for "life giving rain" to "come and soften our parched land."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Post-tsunami, Thailand's beaches still enchant

from the November 17, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1117/p12s01-litr.html

Alison Cooper spent a few days on the beach visiting an exotic island in Thailand.

Where did you go?

I went to Phi Phi Don, Thailand.

Where did you stay?

I stayed a few nights at the Twin Palms Bungalows on Loh Dalum Bay. They are unadvertised and quite possibly squatting on the beach where the tsunami hit, but the bungalows are cute and clean, chill music from the bar adds a bohemian flair, and you use a hammock to admire the sea while taking note of the ominous decapitated palm trees along the shore.

What did you do?

I ended up taking the day trip to Phi Phi Leh that included snorkeling, lunch, snacks, and a day exploring the area's National Marine Park by boat. The highlight of this popular tour is the famous Maya Bay, the site where the film "The Beach" was filmed. Construction on Phi Phi Don is a constant reminder of the tsunami, but the main tourist strip on the Ton Sai Bay side is in full force, even during low season. Taking the short but steep hike up to the lookout is well worth it - the view is epic. There also is a very nice memorial garden near the beach.

Where did you eat?

Traveling in the Land of Smiles can feel like a nonstop food fest. My favorite pick from the wide variety of seafront dining options was Carpe Diem, an adorable low-lit treehouse that overlooked the ocean and had a great view of the nightly fire dance show.

• Where have you been? What did you do? Write us at Weekend

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

If Delta merges: fares up, fewer seats

from the November 17, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1117/p02s01-usec.html

US Airways' takeover bid might not help passengers, but it could improve the industry's bottom line.

By Alexandra Marks Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK

Whenever a big airline deal is proposed, the first question that arises usually is: What will it mean for the flying public?

In the case of US Airways' announcement this week that it hopes to acquire bankrupt Delta Air Lines for $8 billion, the simple answer is: higher prices.

That's because the merger would cut capacity by about 10 percent - in other words, passengers would have 10 percent fewer seats to choose from when they fly, which usually drives up prices. That would be good for the overall industry's bottom line.

But the dynamics behind this proposed merger, and the still precarious state of the nation's recovering aviation industry in the post-9/11 world, make the ramifications for the public far less clear. Add to that, it's far from a done deal: It still needs approval from the bankruptcy courts and the Justice Department. As a result, analysts have starkly different assessments of "just what this will mean."

One camp thinks it's the best thing to happen to the industry bottom line since jet fuel prices dropped below $70 a barrel. That's because it will cut capacity. "Anytime you take capacity out of the industry, I would view it favorably," says Helane Becker, an analyst at the Benchmark Company in New York.

But a different school of thought says that with planes already flying 80-to-90 percent full, overcapacity in the industry is no longer a major issue. After all, the traditional, so-called legacy carriers are making money even with oil at $60 a barrel.

"Forget the capacity canard: Everything is already full. There's already a resurgence in the industry," says Michael Boyd, president of the Boyd Group, an aviation consulting company in Evergreen, Colo. "If we take another 10 percent capacity out, that means airlines will carry fewer people and charge them more. Congress will just love that."

Then, of course, there's the question of what it will mean for competition. US Airways contends the combined company, which would become the "New Delta," would be more efficient and thus a better competitor in the recovering marketplace. The combined operations would save $1.65 billion a year by doing away with duplication, consolidating information systems, and reducing overhead, it says. And all those efficiencies can be achieved without cutting a single destination that's currently served by either airline, according to Doug Parker, US Airways chairman and chief executive.

"Even with a 10 percent reduction in capacity, all existing U.S. destinations served today by US Airways and Delta will remain part of the new, improved network," Mr. Parker wrote to Delta's chairman in an open letter released Wednesday morning. "Consumers will have the advantages of a larger, full-service airline with the cost structure of a low-fare carrier, and the communities we serve, as well as those Delta serves, will have access to a wider range of network options."

Some analysts like Mr. Boyd doubt those touted savings can be achieved. He also thinks the airlines' route structures - which are similar, particularly in the South and East, where they own the competing Northeast corridor shuttles - could cause problems at the Department of Justice.
"It doesn't make any sense at all. The synergies aren't there like they're claiming," says Boyd. "And the DOJ might turn this down in a heartbeat, because it just decimates competition, particularly in the Deep South."

Other analysts also question whether the cut in capacity brought about by the merger would result in anything but a short-term gain for the industry as a whole, particularly if there's a recession next year. In that case, the majors might start increasing capacity to fend off competition from low-cost carriers, which have continued to expand their market share, says Kevin Mitchell of the Business Travel Coalition in Radnor, Pa.

And then, the industry could find itself right back where it is today: charging prices that are so low it is just barely able to make a profit.

Another question is how easy it will be to make one company from two that have very different corporate cultures. There are seniority lists to merge and very different unionized workforces to integrate. The companies even fly different planes.

"This is not an industry where mergers often go smoothly, even when both parties are willing participants," says Clint Oster, an aviation expert at Indiana University in Bloomington. "It's hard to believe that it's not going to be very difficult to do in this case, particularly because it appears to be more of an equivalent to a hostile takeover."

But other analysts, who believe next year will be a good one for the industry, say the merger will help consolidate what is still a fairly fragmented industry. They also believe that higher prices brought about by a merger not only are necessary, but could be here to stay.

"If you compare by historical standards, we're still flying very cheap," says Ray Neidl of Calyon Securities in New York. "Longer term, if you can continue to get some of the peripheral capacity out of the system, it will give [the majors] even stronger pricing power."

In the end, all the analysis could be academic. US Airways still has to convince Delta's creditors and a bankruptcy judge that a merged company could do better than Delta alone. It also has to win approval from the Department of Justice, which frowned on a merger between US Airways and United just a few years ago.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

A note to the travel industry: Who are you calling 'over the hill'?

from the November 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p18s02-hfes.html

By Joy Robinson

I'm over 55, and I'm willing to pay good money to sleep on the floor of a villager's hut. I want the adventure travel industry to take note of this.

The reason behind this outburst is the growing realization that, as I've matured, so to speak, I've slowly dropped out of the target demographic for the travel I love - soft adventures in the developing world.

Soft adventure trips are typically understood as those that require a willingness to sacrifice some creature comforts in pursuit of a purportedly more authentic experience. They contrast with what I suppose would be hard, or physical, adventures - such as high-altitude trekking or mountain climbing.

In practice, they involve staying in accommodations generally understood not to be acceptable to the American traveling public - accepting iffy sanitation arrangements, communicating by hand signals with hosts at home stays, and the like.

This is the travel I love, and this is the travel I've been pursuing since I was first able to afford it.

I've always been vaguely aware of statements lurking in the fine print of catalogs and consumer publications about typical travelers being in the, usually, 18-to-55 age range. Only in the past few years have I realized, with shock, that these statements could have something to do with me.

Certainly not all the companies whose brochures I regularly peruse contain this qualification, and indeed the prices of many almost ensure that their trips will appeal mostly to affluent retirees. I don't believe that any of the companies in question would deny me a place on their trip rosters - business is business, after all - but I chafe at the implication that I would be the grand old lady of the group and should start acting my age.

As someone who attends every travel fair and adds her name to any mailing list with an outside possibility of producing an interesting tour, I probably receive more travel-related material in a period of months than most people do in a lifetime.

But somewhere there is a giant travel database where, along with my preferences (Asia, ethnic encounters), sits my age. About the time I turned 50, I noticed a subtle shift in the character of the materials I received. Brochures for cruise lines started to arrive, in which I could admire images of elegant, silver-haired couples gazing reflectively out to sea.

The second wave seemed to be composed of golfing holidays at upscale resorts, although I have never played more than the odd game of miniature golf.

Clearly the travel industry had decided that it was time for me to move beyond my youthful fascination with initiation ceremonies and open-air plumbing.

Don't get me wrong - it's important to understand the age profile of a particular trip. I don't want to end up with a group of 20-year-olds traveling in a converted truck any more than I would have wanted to when I was their age.

I was once stuck behind just such a group at the Bulgarian-Romanian border, and was grateful for the discernment that had allowed me to avoid such pitfalls.

It's equally true that tour operators have a legitimate interest in assuring that clients are up to the rigors of a particular trip, and they usually have no more than the client's own statement to go on.

Certainly, suggested age ceilings are one way of making travelers seriously contemplate their limitations, but they are very one-size-fits-all. Who says that age is the main indicator of physical fitness?

In the meantime, I plan to continue traveling in the style to which I've become accustomed, as long as I can make it up the hill and over the suspension bridge.

I'm sure I'm not alone. We baby boomers are the spiritual heirs of the hippie trail to Kabul and Katmandu, even if we didn't personally make the trip. We're predicted to change the face of retirement, the health-care system, and the economy itself.

I'm hoping we'll change the preconceptions of the travel industry as well.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Websites make donations easy - and free of charge

from the November 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p13s02-lire.html

In 2005, clicks on The Hunger Site funded more than 38 million pounds of food.

By Casey Parks Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

Reading newspaper articles about tragedies and in Africa made Elizabeth Stein, editor in chief of the student newspaper at Hunter College in New York City, want to cry. With literally only $1 in her checking account, Ms. Stein felt helpless about addressing the issues of hunger on the continent.

But then she discovered The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/), one of several websites where people can make a donation to a charity without spending a dime. The "it's free" tab is a welcome sign for Americans like Stein, whose hearts happen to be bigger than their wallets. "I love that I can help someone for free," she says.

Launched in 1999 and operated with five other similar sites by CharityUSA based in Seattle, The Hunger Site raises money for charities through sponsors whose ads appear after visitors click on certain links. After The Hunger Site became hugely successful, CharityUSA opened other sites, including The Breast Cancer Site and The Animal Site. CharityUSA sites primarily do not advertise their sites, but President Tim Kunin says they sometimes use Google ads to promote products the site sells to raise additional money for charities.

"Almost all of our advertising is done by word of mouth," Mr. Kunin says.

Clicking campaigns have popped up everywhere from high schools and universities to online forums. Users can even sign up for a daily e-mail reminder to click.

Jim Pierce of Elkton, Va., uses phishook.com, a music forum, to issue a weekly challenge to readers to click on The Hunger Site. Each week, he rewards someone who clicked that week with music freebies, such as CDs.

Mr. Pierce began clicking on the site in 1999. Initially, he monitored his e-mail to make sure his information wasn't being sold. He saw no increase in spam. "I drew the conclusion that this was ... an opportunity to do something good every day without having to spend a dime - and by doing no more than clicking on a link, looking at a few ads, and letting the advertiser pay to do some real good," he says.

The Hunger Site distributes food through Mercy Corps and America's Second Harvest. Charities are chosen not only by the work that they do, Kunin says, but also by their understanding of the Internet. "We want them to be conversant with the Web," he says. "Our clickers are going to want to go to their site to learn more about them."

In 2005, visitor clicks funded more than 38 million pounds of food - an increase of 3 million from 2004, the site says. The Hunger Site's popularity is growing, but not nearly as quickly as its sister sites. The Breast Cancer Site and The Animal Site may be faring better because they're domestic issues, Kunin suggests. "Some people really only care about one issue, so they come and click for that one issue and then leave," he says.

Though The Animal Site received more than 8 million more clicks than The Hunger site last year, organizations supported by The Hunger Site aren't complaining. Since its inception, The Hunger Site has donated more than $1 million to Mercy Corps. That money is "critical," says Mercy Corps Chief Development Officer Matthew De Galan.

In fact, when the site shut down temporarily in 2001, Mr. De Galan took the first flight to Seattle and camped outside The Hunger Site's offices until he could find out what had happened. Though the capital generated from the clicking is substantial enough, De Galan adds that The Hunger Site also brings thousands of new donors to Mercy Corps.

The ease of online giving has spawned several websites that share similar goals, but employ various methods to raise funds. In addition to the click sites, users can make donations by changing their Web-based e-mail accounts, switching their preferred search engine, or even joining an online networking group.

The level of success among charitable click sites does vary. Freedonation.com, for example, targets several issues, including cancer and homelessness. For every click, sponsors pay a few cents to sponsored organizations. One charity listed on Freedonation.com, Mothers Supporting Daughters with Breast Cancer, received no money this year or last year, says president Charmayne Dierker. "Not enough people have been clicking," she says.

Years ago, however, Ms. Dierker used to receive annual checks from the site. "In the early days, when the first check came to us, I nearly fainted," she says. "It was something like $600. As the years have gone by, it has waned, though."

The ease of giving on the Web may seem too good to be true, but Stein says, "My skepticism doesn't matter too much if all I have to do is click. If I were donating actual funds, I would want more information."

Back when she was in high school, Laurel Fantauzzo says she clicked on The Hunger Site every day. She, too, was suspicious of the site, but kept doing it "out of the lingering hope that practically doing nothing did something."

She doesn't habitually click now. But last year, Ms. Fantauzzo, a 20-something editorial assistant for Dell Magazines, went back to one of the sites and went the extra mile. She sponsored a family's food supply in central Africa through a cash donation. "What I suspect is that maybe they have this click thing as a psychological effort to make people feel accomplished," she says. "Like, they may think, 'Giving was so easy, I can give some more, and it will still be easy.' "

Other easy ways to donate

1. Use a different search engine: Charitycafe.com donates money to the World Wildlife Fund, Oxfam, and Greenpeace each time a user searches through its website. The site uses Ask Jeeves and Lycos to search the Internet. The two search engines fund the donations as payment for the Web traffic sent to their sites.

The site, which calls itself the world's first "search and donate free site," launched in October 2000.

2. Switch Web-based e-mail accounts: PlanetSave offers 25 MB of free e-mail space. Every time a user logs on to his e-mail account, PlanetSave sponsors donate money to "Friends of the Calakmul," a group that conserves the Selva Maya rain forest in Mexico.

3. Join a social networking site: New York University student Marek Grodzicki created a Facebook group pledging, "For every 1,000 people who join this group, I will donate $1 for Darfur." Though Mr. Grodzicki says he is "no millionaire by any means," as this story went to press the group had already garnered more than 453,000 members. He will tally up the numbers in January 2007, then make his donation. Other students have promised to match his pledge. Grodzicki's group has also inspired other students to begin similar groups on Facebook, pledging money for issues like breast cancer or global warming.

4. Buy a product: All of the CharityUSA sites have on-site stores, the profits of which go directly to charities. Rocker Bono just launched Product Red, in coordination with partners like Gap and Converse, to support the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Buy a shirt, some shoes or shades, and you'll be donating money.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links