. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Araz Hachadourian, Yes! Magazine (reprinted according to terms of Creative Commons)

When Paola Gonzalez received a phone call from RIP Medical Debt, she was certain what she heard was a mistake. A prank, maybe. The caller said a $950 hospital bill had been paid for in full: It would not affect her credit and she wouldn’t have to worry about it again. “They wanted to pay a bill for me,” she said. “I was just speechless.”

The 24-year-old student from Roselle Park, New Jersey, has lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease that in 2011 put her in and out of hospitals for a year. Even with insurance she faces a barrage of medical bills that often get pushed aside. “I can’t always work,” Gonzalez said. “I’ll be fine today and sick tomorrow. It’s really amazing that people would help out like this.”

Gonzalez is one of many people who have had a debt paid by RIP Medical Debt, a nonprofit founded by two former debt collectors, Jerry Ashton and Craig Antico, that buys debt on the open market and then abolishes it, no strings attached. In the year since RIP Medical Debt started, the group has abolished just under $400,000, according to Antico. On July 4, it launched a year-long campaign to raise $177,600 in donations, which it will use to abolish $17.6 million of other people’s debt.

Millions of people are, in Ashton’s words, “sitting at the kitchen table and you have to decide, ‘Do I buy medication today or do I pay the water bill or do I pay the debt collector?’… We decided we should take the debt collector out of the equation.”

It works like this: typical collection agencies will buy debts from private practices, hospitals, and other collection agencies that don’t find it worthwhile to pursue the debt themselves. The buyers often get a steal, buying a debt for pennies on the dollar while charging the debtor the full amount, plus additional fees.

According to a 2013 report from the Federal Trade Commission, from 2006-2009 the nine biggest debt collection companies purchased about $143 billion of consumer debt for less than $6.5 billion; 17 percent of it was medical.

Antico and Ashton are plugged into the same marketplace. They say that with the money they raise, they buy the debt for around one percent of the amount it’s worth (when debtors settle directly with collection agencies, they pay an average of 60 percent of the loan.) Then, they forgive it.

Some debt-sellers find the cash in hand more valuable. Some doctors want the debt forgiven to help maintain a relationship with their patients.

Ashton worked in the debt collections business for more than 30 years. As he learned about its tactics, he was moved to start his own consulting firm with the goal of keeping people out of collections. He said the industry treated debts as “commodities” and sold them for a profit while the debtor struggled to pay off the full amount. “That I find to be unconscionable,” says Ashton.

(Article continued in the right side of the page)

Helping the poorest of the poor help themselves, if millions took it up, could it be the foundation of a just world?

(Article continued from the left side of the page)

He was inspired to rethink debt by the Occupy Wall Street movement and its offshoot, Strike Debt, which started the Rolling Jubilee, a program that began buying debt and abolishing it in October 2012.

Medical debt contributed to almost 60 percent of the bankruptcies in the United States in 2013. So when Rolling Jubilee shifted its focus to student loans, Ashton and Antico decided to pick up the torch.

“You don’t wake up one morning and decide to have a $150,000 mastectomy,” says Ashton. “This is not elective debt.”

For people with chronic illness, like Gonzalez, or those who require extended care, the prospect of a growing pile of debts that cannot be paid is simply frightening. For many, it leads to neglect of care they need: an estimated 25 million adults will not take medicine as prescribed because they cannot afford it; others will avoid the doctor altogether.

This is why RIP Medical debt sees the outstanding bills not just as unpaid, but ultimately unpayable. When buying debts, Ashton and Antico seek out patients whose payments create an immense burden—patients who either earn twice below the national poverty level or whose payments would require five percent or more of their income. They work with the hospitals and medical practices when purchasing debt portfolios to identify debtors who need aid the most.

Many of the people who need aid are not properly identified when they go through a hospital registration process. According to Antico, typically 5-10 percent of all hospital cases are uncompensated. When those who cannot pay are billed, those bills often turn into unpaid debts. “This is a systemic issue. It’s not their fault they got sick and incurred debt,” says Antico. “You can’t imagine how bad they feel and they shouldn’t have to.”

Crowd-funding for debt relief is becoming an increasingly popular trend. Back in 2002, a church in Virginia got together to eliminate its members credit card debts. Rolling Jubilee has abolished nearly $32 million in loans since it began. A UK man even tried to crowd-fund a bailout for Greece, raising almost €2 million from strangers by pointing out that Greece’s €1.6 billion debt simmers down to €3 from every European.

RIP Medical Debt has been criticized by some within the debt abolition movement for structuring itself as a nonprofit organization that pays for work (though Ashton and Antico work as volunteers, they pay outside contractors for things like website maintenance and design); whereas the above efforts and the original Rolling Jubilee focused entirely on grassroots organization and mutual aid.

Still, Ashton and Antico see potential for the project as an opportunity people to help their community. “I think everybody giving to everybody is how we should approach this,” Antico says.

As for Gonzalez, while she is excited and grateful for the bill that was paid, her ongoing condition means she still has a lot of debt to get through. Right now she’s focused on avoiding bankruptcy and managing the bill from her primary doctor while the others are pushed to the side. “I just hope that eventually I’ll be able to pay it off,” she said. “This is the first time I’ve been healthy for a couple months straight so I hope that it stays that way.”

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

A news release from the Office of the Premier

Ontario and 22 other states and regions have signed the first-ever Pan-American action statement on climate change. The Climate Action Statement highlights the urgency of combatting climate change, affirms that state, provincial and municipal governments are leaders in achieving impactful global climate action and acknowledges the need to work together to continue reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

Sub-jurisdictional leaders convene on stage at Ontario’s Climate Summit of the Americas. (Twitter image: @environmentont)

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne led the signing today at the Climate Summit of the Americas. The statement includes commitments to:

* Support carbon pricing;
* Ensure public reporting;
* Take action in key sectors;
* Meet existing greenhouse gas reduction agreements.

Signatories include representatives of states and regions from across the Americas, including Brazil, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

The statement builds on recent agreements, including California’s Under 2 Memorandum of Understanding, which stresses the need for immediate action to limit global warming to 2°C, and the Compact of States and Regions, which commits partner jurisdictions to annual public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The statement calls for greater national action at the United Nations Conference of the Parties in Paris, and support for regional measures.

It also builds on Ontario’s actions to address climate change, which include the announcement of a cap and trade program to limit the main sources of greenhouse gas pollution, the establishment of a 2030 mid-term target for greenhouse gas pollution reduction, the closure of all coal-fired power plants and the largest infrastructure investment in Ontario’s history, which includes the electrification of the province’s commuter rail network.

Combatting climate change is part of the government’s economic plan to build Ontario up. The four-part plan includes investing in people’s talents and skills, making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history, creating a dynamic, innovative environment where business thrives and building a secure retirement savings plan.

Quick Facts

Combatting climate change creates new economic opportunities in renewable energy and clean technologies. Ontario’s environmental sector has 3,000 firms, employs 65,000 people, and is worth an estimated $8 billion in annual revenues and $1 billion in export earnings.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, every $100 million invested in Ontario in climate-related technologies is estimated to generate an increase of $137 million in GDP and 1,400 new jobs.

A Canada2020 poll shows that 84 per cent of Canadians believe that prosperous countries such as Canada have an obligation to show international leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(Article continued in right column)

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from left column)

Background Information

Climate Action Statement – Climate Summit of the Americas

Additional Resources

Climate Summit of the Americas

Climate Change Discussion Paper

Ontario Climate Change Update 2014

Follow and join the conversation on Twitter with #CSOTA

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Mike Morrice, Sustainability Colab

Typically, I’m not too interested in large meetings of political leaders discussing climate change. Time and again it’s been proven that gatherings of this kind don’t produce much of an outcome, and I’m disinterested in words without action. Having been at the Climate Summit of the Americas (CSOTA) this past week though, I can say this: something has changed. A new rallying cry has emerged, amongst states and provinces across the continent. Whether from the Governor of California, the Premier of Quebec, or the Environment Minister from my home province of Ontario, the message at CSOTA was the same: subnational jurisdictions are ready to act, regardless of the political will (or lack thereof) coming from their federal governments. And they want to act together.

Sub-jurisdictional leaders convene on stage at Ontario’s Climate Summit of the Americas. (Twitter image: @environmentont)

Seven years ago, I was deeply frustrated with the lack of international and federal action on climate change. Though I was also convinced communities across the country could show the leadership I knew was desperately needed.

The tension between the two led me to start Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR). In doing so, space was created in my community for businesses to learn from one another’s sustainability journeys. Other communities similarly began to take action through groups like the C40 and FCM’s Partners for Climate Protection Program. States and provinces were a mixed bag. Some like BC led by implementing North America’s first carbon tax, others like Ontario joined the Western Climate Initiative though didn’t actively pursue putting a price on carbon.

In the intervening years, so much has changed. Ontario has phased out coal-fired electricity and introduced the Green Energy Act to spur an unprecedented take-up of renewable energy in this province. Cities emerged as a leading voice on climate change and a source of hope for many, and my energy has continued to be focused here. Having started Sustainability CoLab to share the program we piloted at SWR, 12% of the workforces Niagara and Waterloo Regions are now setting targets to reduce their carbon impact by almost 60,000 tonnes, while organizations across the province are launching similar programs, from the Climate-Wise Business Network in York Region to Carbon 613 in Ottawa.

The federal government, however, has continued to give little attention to the climate crisis. If anything, they’ve dug their heels in, continually positioning a false choice between the economy and the environment. It’s a damaging and unfortunate narrative that has cast Canada as a villain on the international stage.

(Article continued in right column)

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from left column)

And so it’s on this backdrop that #CSOTA felt like a public declaration for a new, more collaborative and more empowered approach from subnational jurisdictions across the continent.

Time and again I heard: there is no need for us to wait for others to act. There’s no time to waste. And collectively, regions and states stated their readiness to harness their considerable influence.

Tangibly, the Summit produced 22 state and region signatories to a Climate Action Statement, itself linking to action in several areas, including commitments to join any one of the “Under 2 MOU”, to sign the Compact of States and Regions, and to support carbon pricing. The Under 2 MOU is of particular significance, underscoring an interest both in limiting warming to 2oC and to bringing GHG emissions down to 2 tonnes per capital. Both are ambitious and needed goals.

One sign that I’m optimistic these politicians are serious about their promises goes beyond the words they used to describe the crisis, which ranged from metaphors evoking the sinking of the Titanic to post-WWII nation building.

Their actions speak louder: In her opening address, I expected Premier Kathleen Wynne to be as passionate and persuasive as she was; in her words: “we have to find a better way to build prosperity”. Just two days before the opening of the Pan Am games in her province’s capital, I wouldn’t have been surprised if after her keynote she ducked out to attend a myriad of other public events, ceremonies, you name it. Instead, she stayed for the next day and a half of open and closed sessions, concluding with the signing of the Climate Action Statement. In her words and her actions she was clear: the Premier wants Ontario to lead by example and she’s strongly encouraging others to join in.

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Elizabeth Royte, Ensia (abridged)

. . .. That researchers are even bothering to quantify the amount of food produced on tiny city farms — whether community gardens, like those of Camden and Philly, or for-profit operations, like Leadley’s — is testament to the nation’s burgeoning local-foods movement and its data-hungry supporters. Young farmers are, in increasing numbers, planting market gardens in cities, and “local” produce (a term with no formal definition) now fills grocery shelves across the U.S., from Walmart to Whole Foods, and is promoted in more than 150 nations around the world.

photo by Martin Szczepanski

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that 800 million people worldwide grow vegetables or fruits or raise animals in cities, producing what the Worldwatch Institute reports to be an astonishing 15 to 20 percent of the world’s food. In developing nations, city dwellers farm for subsistence, but in the U.S., urban ag is more often driven by capitalism or ideology. The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn’t track numbers of city farmers, but based on demand for its programs that fund education and infrastructure in support of urban-ag projects, and on surveys of urban ag in select cities, it affirms that business is booming. How far — and in what direction — can this trend go? What portion of a city’s food can local farmers grow, at what price, and who will be privileged to eat it? And can such projects make a meaningful contribution to food security in an increasingly crowded world? . . .

Despite their relatively small size, urban farms grow a surprising amount of food, with yields that often surpass those of their rural cousins. This is possible for a couple reasons. First, city farms don’t experience heavy insect pressure, and they don’t have to deal with hungry deer or groundhogs. Second, city farmers can walk their plots in minutes, rather than hours, addressing problems as they arise and harvesting produce at its peak. They can also plant more densely because they hand cultivate, nourish their soil more frequently and micromanage applications of water and fertilizer.

As social enterprises, community gardens operate in an alternate financial universe: they don’t sustain themselves with sales, nor do they have to pay employees.

Though they don’t get as much press as for-profit farms and heavily capitalized rooftop operations, community gardens — which are collectively tended by people using individual or shared plots of public or private land, and have been a feature in U.S. cities for well over a century — are the most common form of urban agriculture in the nation, producing far more food and feeding more people, in aggregate, than their commercial counterparts. As social enterprises, community gardens operate in an alternate financial universe: they don’t sustain themselves with sales, nor do they have to pay employees. Instead, they rely on volunteer or cheap youth labor, they pay little or nothing in rent, and they solicit outside aid from government programs and foundations that support their social and environmental missions. These may include job training, health and nutrition education, and increasing the community’s resilience to climate change by absorbing stormwater, counteracting the urban heat island effect and converting food waste into compost.

Funders don’t necessarily expect community gardens to become self-sustaining. These farms may increase their revenue streams by selling at farmers markets or to restaurants, or they may collect fees from restaurants or other food-waste generators for accepting scraps that will be converted into compost, says Ruth Goldman, a program officer at the Merck Family Fund, which funds urban agriculture projects. “But margins on vegetable farming are very slim, and because these farms are doing community education and training teen leaders, they’re not likely to operate in the black” . . .

(continued in right column)

What is the relation between movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

In the world’s poorest nations, city dwellers have always farmed for subsistence. But more of them are farming now than ever before. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, it’s estimated that 40 percent of the urban population is engaged in agriculture. Long-time residents and recent transplants alike farm because they’re hungry, they know how to grow food, land values in marginal areas (under power lines and along highways) are low, and inputs like organic wastes — fertilizer — are cheap. Another driver is the price of food: People in developing nations pay a far higher percentage of their total income for food than Americans do, and poor transportation and refrigeration infrastructure make perishable goods, like fruits and vegetables, especially dear. Focusing on these high-value crops, urban farmers both feed themselves and supplement their incomes.

In the U.S., urban farming is likely to have its biggest impact on food security in places that, in some ways, resemble the global south — that is, in cities or neighborhoods where land is cheap, median incomes are low and the need for fresh food is high. Detroit, by this metric, is particularly fertile ground. Michael Hamm, a professor of sustainable agriculture at Michigan State University, calculated that the city, which has just under 700,000 residents and more than 100,000 vacant lots (many of which can be purchased, thanks to the city’s recent bankruptcy, for less than the price of a refrigerator), could grow three quarters of its current vegetable consumption and nearly half its fruit consumption on available parcels of land using biointensive methods.

No one expects city farms in the U.S. to replace peri-urban or rural vegetable farms: cities don’t have the acreage or the trained farmers, and most can’t produce food anything close to year-round. . .
That doesn’t mean that community gardeners, who don’t even try to be profitable, aren’t making a big difference in their immediate communities. Camden’s 31,000 pounds (14,000 kg) of produce might not seem like a lot, but it’s a very big deal for those lucky enough to get their hands on it. “In poor communities where households earn very little income,” says Domenic Vitiello, an associate professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania, “a few thousand dollars’ worth of vegetables and fruit grown in the garden makes a much bigger difference than for more affluent households.”
History tells us that community gardening — supported by individuals, government agencies and philanthropies — is here to stay.

And whether these gardens ultimately produce more food or more knowledge about food — where it comes from, what it takes to produce it, how to prepare and eat it — they still have enormous value as gathering places and classrooms and as conduits between people and nature. Whether or not cultivating fruits and vegetables in tiny urban spaces makes economic or food-security sense, people who want to grow food in cities will find a way to do so. As Laura Lawson says, “City gardens are part of our ideal sense of what a community should be. And so their value is priceless.”

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Ben Adler, Grist (abridged)

. . . On Tuesday [May 5], the lefty New Democratic Party (NDP) won the provincial elections on a platform that promises to diversify Alberta’s fossil fuel–dependent economy. The NDP campaigned on criticism of the Conservatives for being too close to the oil industry and a pledge to tax more oil profits. From The Wall Street Journal:

“She also signaled her party wouldn’t support a proposed Enbridge Inc. crude-oil pipeline, called the Northern Gateway, which would connect Alberta’s oil sands with a planned Pacific coast terminal in British Columbia, telling a local newspaper that ‘Gateway is not the right decision.’:

Notley also doesn’t support plans for Keystone XL, and pledged to stop spending taxpayer dollars to push the pipeline in Washington, D.C. (She does support two other tar-sands pipeline projects, though.) And she wants Alberta to get more serious about climate change, as the Globe and Mail reports:

“Another focus, according to Ms. Notley’s platform, will be bolstering the province’s reputation on climate change as previous governments have resisted establishing tougher targets for carbon reduction from the oil sands and other industries.”

The NDP triumph in Alberta may put political pressure on the Harper government, which is facing a federal election this fall. The province’s voters sent the message that they want more protection for the environment and less pandering to oil interests. This couldn’t happen at a better time, as environmentalists are nervously awaiting Canada’s proposal for carbon emission reductions heading into the U.N. climate negotiations to be held this December in Paris. Will Harper now make a more significant climate commitment? We’ll all be watching to see.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

See the comment below. CPNN readers are encouraged to add to this discussion.