Women's Views on News |
- Coal, and our duties to our children
- Pay cut despite huge cash reserves?
- Why gender should be on Europe’s agenda
- ‘Breadwinner’ families face poverty
| Coal, and our duties to our children Posted: 21 Nov 2013 08:07 AM PST
Christiana Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The World Coal Association hosted the ‘International Coal and Climate Summit‘ in Warsaw on earlier this week. Speaking on 18 November at this event, to the leadership of the world’s largest coal producing companies, senior policy-makers, business leaders, academics and NGO representatives to discuss the role of coal in the global economy, in the context of the climate change agenda, she said: ‘I appreciate the opportunity to address the International Coal and Climate Summit in a frank and honest exchange on the transition to a low-emission economy. Let me be clear from the outset that my joining you today is neither a tacit approval of coal use, nor a call for the immediate disappearance of coal. But I am here to say that coal must change rapidly and dramatically for everyone's sake. There are some who, deeply concerned about the devastating effects of climate change already felt by vulnerable populations around the world, are calling for the immediate shut down of all coal plants. There are others who think that coal does not have to change at all, that we can continue to extract and burn as we have done in the past. The first view does not take into account the immediate needs of nations looking to provide reliable energy to rapidly growing populations in pursuit of economic development and poverty eradication. The second view does not take into account the immediate need for climate stability on this planet, necessary for the wellbeing of present and future generations. Today I want to set out an alternative path that is admittedly not easy, but is undoubtedly necessary. That path must acknowledge the past, consider the present and chart a path towards an acceptable future for all. I join you today to discuss this path for two reasons. First, the energy sector is an intrinsic component of a sustainable future. And second, the coal industry must change and you are decision makers who have the knowledge and power to change the way the world uses coal. The path forward begins in the past, recognising that coal played a key role in the history of our economic development. From heating to transportation to the provision of electricity, coal has undoubtedly enabled much of our progress over the last 200 years. Coal was at the heart of the developed world's Industrial Revolution and brought affordable energy to parts of the developing world. However, while society has benefitted from coal-fuelled development, we now know there is an unacceptably high cost to human and environmental health. The science is clear. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [AR5] outlines our predicament. We are at unprecedented GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations in the atmosphere; our carbon budget is half spent. If we continue to meet energy needs as we have in the past, we will overshoot the internationally agreed goal to limit warming to less than two degree Celsius. AR5 is not science fiction, it is science fact. AR5 is the overwhelming consensus of 200 lead authors synthesizing the work of 600 scientists who analysed 9000 peer-reviewed publications. AR5 is arguably the most rigorous scientific report ever written. And, the findings of the AR5 have been endorsed by 195 governments, including all of those in which you operate. There is no doubt that the science is a clarion call for the rapid transformation of the coal industry. Just this morning, more than 25 leading climate and energy scientists from around the world released a clear statement about the need to radically rethink coal's place in our energy mix. Considering that coal energy loads the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, competes for water and impacts public health, the call of science has already been answered by a wide gamut of stakeholders: Students, faith-based organizations and citizens are asking their investment managers to divest from coal and other fossil fuels. Cities choked by air pollution are limiting the burning of coal. Development banks have stopped funding unabated coal. Commercial financial institutions are analysing the implications of unburnable carbon for their investment strategies. Pricing of GHG emissions is on the rise, evidenced by trading markets coming online around the globe. And, international policy is moving us toward a global low-emission economy. All of this tells me that the coal industry faces a business continuation risk that you can no longer afford to ignore. Like any other industry, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your workforce and your shareholders. Like any other industry, you are subject to the major political, economic and social shifts of our time. And by now it should be abundantly clear that further capital expenditures on coal can go ahead only if they are compatible with the two degree Celsius limit. Ladies and gentlemen, the coal industry has the opportunity to be part of the worldwide climate solution by responding proactively to the current paradigm shift. It would be presumptuous of me to put forward a transition plan for coal as you are the repositories of knowledge and experience, and the assets you manage are at stake. But there are some fundamental parameters of this transition: close all existing subcritical plants; implement safe CCUS on all new plants, even the most efficient; and leave most existing reserves in the ground. These are not marginal or trivial changes, these are transformations that go to the core of the coal industry, and many will say it simply cannot be done. But the phrase "where there's a will, there's a way" is tantamount to human history because will precedes innovation, and innovation precedes transformation. John F. Kennedy called for putting man on the moon in ten years at a point when no one knew how that would be done. We must transform coal with the same determination, the same perseverance, the same will. We must be confident that if we set an ambitious course to low-emissions, science and technology will rapidly transform systems. Above all, you must invest in this potential, because the coal industry has the most to gain by leveraging the existing capital, knowledge and capacity to transform itself. The world is rising to meet the climate challenge as risks of inaction mount, and it is in your best interest to make coal part of the solution. These radical changes have the transformative power to bring coal in line with the direction in which society is moving. I urge every coal company to honestly assess the financial risks of business as usual; anticipate increasing regulation, growing finance restrictions and diminishing public acceptance; and leverage technology to reduce emissions across the entire coal value chain. You are here today as coal industry leaders, but you can also understand yourselves as long-term energy supply leaders. Some major oil, gas and energy technology companies are already investing in renewables, and I urge those of you who have not yet started to join them. By diversifying your portfolio beyond coal, you too can produce clean energy that reduces pollution, enhances public health, increases energy security and creates new jobs. By diversifying beyond coal, you reduce the risk of stranded assets and make yourselves ready to reap the rewards of a green economy. The Warsaw Communique is a first step for change because it shows: that the Association accepts climate change as a development risk; and that lower coal emissions is an aspirational and realizable goal. The communique is a first step, but it cannot be the last. I invite you to use this Climate and Coal Summit to decide how you are going to step up to the challenge of contributing to real climate change solutions. We must urgently take the steps that put us on an ambitious path to global peaking by the end of this decade, and zero-net emissions by the second half of the century. Steps that look past next quarter's bottom line and see next generation's bottom line, and steps to figure health, security and sustainability into the bottom line. For it will be your children and my children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren who will look back at today and judge our collective commitment to them. They must be able to look back and recognise this summit as a historic turning point for the coal industry.’ Interesting speech, and I would hate you to have missed it.  |
| Pay cut despite huge cash reserves? Posted: 21 Nov 2013 07:47 AM PST
The University and College Union (UCU), Unite, Unison and the Education Institute of Scotland (EIS) have called for a second day of strike action on 3 December 2013. On 3 December members of staff and students at universities throughout the UK will be striking in continued action taking place in response to proposed staff wage cuts, the persistence of a gender pay gap in higher education institutions and lack of a living wage for all staff. The gender pay gap in these institutions stands at 14 per cent, while staff pay cuts are set to take place for the fifth year in a row. The University and College Union said that: 'staff have faced a real terms pay cut of 13 per cent since 2008', and regretted that staff employers had not agreed to talk to prevent the first strike action of October 31. They are therefore not optimistic about conducive agreements being made to prevent the second day of strikes in December. In the strike action carried out in October students at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS, London) where the gender pay gap stands at 12 per cent in favour of male staff, said that: '…the strike isn't just about fair pay, it's also about the trebling of tuition fees, the privatisation and commodification of higher education, and appalling conditions for outsourced workers'. And, they concluded: 'This struggle is our struggle too!' Despite the controversial and in my view abysmal tuition fee rise in 2010, a move a recent Independent Commission on Fees report found is putting mature students off applying to universities, staff continue to face financial hardship as wages fail to rise with inflation or continue to be cut. This is despite evidence that all the striking Unions recognise, and as the University and College Union point out, that 'the cumulative operating surplus in the higher education sector is now over £1 billion and many higher education institutions have built up cash reserves'. On top of which '…staff costs in higher education, as a proportion of income, have fallen from 58 per cent in 2001/2002, to 55.5 per cent in 2011/2012'. This at a time when pay and benefits for university leaders is increasing, with university vice-chancellors' earnings reaching almost £250,000 per year. The University College London Union (UCLU), the students’ union attached to the University College London (UCL) said that 'workers have tried to negotiate for a fair deal, but university bosses have stubbornly refused, leaving them with no option but to take action'. This is because 'staff are expected to work harder and harder while supporting themselves and their families on wages that have already fallen by a massive 13 per cent'. The continued existence of a gender pay gap between male and female staff in higher education institutions is shocking. It sends out a message that it is reasonable for women not to be fairly recompensed for their exertions, and that gender inequality is supported and sanctioned by the country’s education authorities. Likewise the lack of a living wage for various positions across universities indicates a willingness to continue with hierarchical systems that scorn those in various positions, an attitude that is at odds with universities’ role as open-minded establishments that foster free thinking and encourage positive societal change. In justification of the pay rise cuts UCL said that 'the HE [higher education] sector continues to face considerable uncertainty and financial insecurity' and that 'the outlook for public funding for HE remains uncertain due to predicted cuts to government expenditure and funding for teaching is more unpredictable'. According to financial data, in 2012 UCL had a financial surplus of £26.4 million, and its income from Funding Council grants was listed as £198.3million. To find out more – or to support the strike – click here or follow the links for the unions listed who are calling for the strike.  |
| Why gender should be on Europe’s agenda Posted: 21 Nov 2013 04:19 AM PST
The National Alliance of Women's Organisations (NAWO) held an event on 7 November aimed at encouraging young women to make their voices heard in the European Union (EU) and in the process revealed what young women want. Hosted as part of the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) 'Festival of Social Science', NAWO's 'Why gender should be on Europe's agenda' event also aimed to help young women to understand the European Union and their role in establishing gender equality both within this framework and in their lives. Attendees were aged between 14 and 25, and represented a diverse range of backgrounds and interests. An opening panel was composed of self-identified 'veterans' of politics: MEPs Mary Honeyball, Catherine Bearder and Rebecca Taylor. A second panel boasted Serap Altinisik of the European Women's Lobby (EWL), Dr Roberta Guerrina of the University of Surrey and Sanchia Alasia, a candidate in the European Parliament elections of 2014. Both panels were chaired by journalist Paola Buonadonna. The initial panel established that women's equal rights had been enshrined in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and should therefore be present in any and all actions taken by the European Union, but there was some distance to go before this was in fact the case. Young women were seen as a section of the voting public who "historically did not vote", and the young women at the event spoke of the disengagement they felt with traditional expressions of and institutions within politics. They said that they had little interaction with those representing their interests and were not suitably educated to understand how they could change this situation. Thus, as Catherine Bearder said, there was the potential for legislation made at the European Union level to be irrelevant to the needs of this segment of society since they were isolated and therefore unable to communicate their wishes. They should be assisted and engaged with to ensure that their interests were supported within the EU. Distressingly, a large portion of the attendees said that they wished they had been made aware of gender inequality issues – such as career obstacles for women, sexual violence and consent – at an earlier age. This was because of the "shock" many of them subsequently felt when facing expressions of gender inequality for the first time; for instance when witnessing the treatment of male siblings and classmates, or in their pursuit of their own interests and aspirations. One young woman spoke of how, hoping to pursue a career in physics, she had been made aware that this was not an anticipated route for women, both in attitudes expressed by those she spoke to and in the overwhelming numbers of men studying the subject at college and university. She said that when she told people she wanted a career in science they often perceived this to mean in biology or anthropological sciences and could not easily comprehend that she in fact intended to enter a so-called "hard science". Another attendee said that women should support women, eloquently highlighting the need for women to mentor younger women and assist them in entering and remaining in career fields despite the inequalities they might face. And the attendees agreed, in discussions between them, that media representation of women was reprehensible. Particular issues were identified in the pop industry, notably the recent Robin Thicke song and the subsequent actions of Miley Cyrus. They also said that media reporting of women, particularly of young women, did not display a "well-rounded representation". Ensuing discussions revealed an emphasis on the need for communities to be educated about gender inequality issues, including particular attention to be given to parents or guardians and the young individuals themselves. It was felt that a comprehensive approach like this would ensure that young women were able to comprehend the issues relevant to them, and be able to take practical action on them in sympathetic, supportive communities. All the speakers spoke openly about their experiences and perceptions which greatly helped the young women present to feel comfortable and secure in voicing their own opinions, worries and needs. It was refreshing – and eye-opening – to hear what the young women had to say – and it is evident that they have a lot more to say and do. Older people everywhere should speak to this section of society and work to engage them; it would be a wise move.  |
| ‘Breadwinner’ families face poverty Posted: 21 Nov 2013 01:09 AM PST
The ‘traditional’ (read: patriarchal) family model of the breadwinning father and stay-at-home mother is leaving children in poverty, according to new research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). Traditional two-parent families, where one parent – usually the father – ‘goes out to work’ while the other stays at home to care for the children, are the UK’s largest group of households with children living in poverty. The research shows that almost a third of the 1.3 million families with children living in poverty are conventional families with a single breadwinner; 400,000 compared to 210,000 dual-income families and 105,000 lone working parents. According to the report, the number of single breadwinner couple families has been falling in recent decades, largely due to social change and the fact that more women want to work, but in some cases it says, women have been forced to work in order to make ends meet for their family. The organisation, which aims to identify and address the root causes of poverty in the UK, said the traditional family model does not offer a guaranteed route out of poverty in Britain today. It calls for a mix of measures to support parents who to want share work and childcare, rather than pursue the traditional single breadwinner model. Katie Schmuecker, Policy and Research Manager at JRF, said: "Our low pay jobs market means many families that are reliant on a single breadwinner find it hard to make ends meet. “Measures like the Living Wage, supporting people to progress into better jobs and ensuring it always pays to work more will all help increase household incomes. “So too will helping more families to become dual earning households,” she continued. “This means we have to tackle the barriers that prevent people that want to work from doing so – such as unaffordable childcare, and the lack of financial incentive to work. “Otherwise many parents and their children may find themselves trapped in poverty with little prospect of bettering their situation." Recommendations include expanding the provision of affordable childcare and making it easier for fathers to share caring responsibilities. Kayte Lawton, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said: "Many fathers work long hours, making it harder for them get involved in family life and more difficult for more mothers in poorer families to work. “Childcare enables parents with young children to work, particularly mothers, but remains expensive for many poor families and needs to be made more affordable. “Despite some improvements in the jobs market, many mothers can only access poorly paid, part-time jobs because of their childcare responsibilities. “Addressing the cost of childcare would enable more mothers to work, boosting household incomes and helping tackle in-work poverty." However, the campaign group Mothers at Home Matter rallied the support of the Daily Mail (don’t read the comments) to condemn the recommendations as punishing for traditional families. “It is outrageous that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is implying that the right of families to care for their children at home is not one which low-income families should have, and should be a preserve only of the wealthy," said Laura Perrins, of Mothers At Home Matter. She has a point, but in reality many women in low-income families don’t have the luxury of that choice for very different reasons; they are literally the ones left holding the baby because that is simply the way things have always been. If you are unskilled or never stand a chance of earning the same kind of salary as your husband, if you can’t afford nursery fees and your employer is inflexible, it will always you, the woman, who has to take on the responsibility of childcare. Middle-class mums with a university degree and a well-paid husband can choose not to work, to stay at home and look after the children. We need to make it possible and viable for women in lower-paid jobs to choose to work, to improve their prospects and those of their children. Moving towards a model where parents share both earning and childcare responsibilities would surely be better for men, women and their children.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |