2011 Call For Entries
32nd Global Media Awards

The Population Institute’s Global Media Awards are devoted to drawing attention to global population issues. The award honors those who have contributed to creating an awareness of population problems through their journalistic endeavors in a meritorious manner.

Guidelines

1. Entries must contain nominee’s complete  contact information : name, address, phone, and   e-mail.
2. Entries must be accompanied by a brief description of the entry and a justification explaining why it should be considered for a Global Media Award.
3. English translations must accompany entries in other languages.
4. Applicants must submit four printed copies of their submissions.

Category Definitions

• Best Article or Series of Articles: For a journalist or journalists who best discuss population-related issues in an article or series of articles appearing in printed or online new sources, including magazines. This excludes any opinion pieces.
• Best Book: For the author or authors of the best book on population-related issues.
• Best Radio Show: For the radio show, including serial drama, that best highlights population-related issues or family planning. The show must have been produced for radio broadcast or online use.
• Best Film or Miniseries: For the best film or miniseries that discusses population-related issues.
• Best Short Film: For the best short film or advocacy short that discusses population-related issues. Must be under 20 minutes.
• Best TV Show: For the TV show, including serial drama, that best highlights population-related issues or family planning.
• Best Editorial Cartoon: For the best editorial cartoon published in print or online newspapers discussing population-related issues. Cartoons published on a journalism media site are accepted.
• Best Print Editorial or Broadcast Commentary: For the columnist or editorial writer that writes the best columns or editorials on population-related issues that appear in print newspapers. Editorials appearing solely online are excluded.
• Best Online Commentary or Blog: For the best editorial or opinion piece appearing online that discusses population-related issues.
• The India News Media Award: For the  best reporter, writer or producer that does the best job of educating policymakers, opinion leaders, and the general public in India about issues relating to sustainability, population, family planning, and reproductive health in India.

The Population Institute is an international, educational, non-profit organization that seeks to voluntarily reduce excessive population growth, through universal access to family planning information, education, and services. We strive to achieve a world population in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base. Established in 1969, the Institute, with members in 172 countries, is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Please visit www.populationinstitute.org.

From the Population Reference Bureau.  To download your copy of the World Population Data Sheet, link to http://www.prb.org/pdf11/2011population-data-sheet_eng.pdf

2011 World Population Data Sheet

Global population will reach 7 billion later in 2011, just 12 years after reaching 6 billion in 1999. Today’s world population is double the population in 1967. But while the overall growth rate has slowed, the population is still growing, and growth rates in some countries show little if any decline. The Population Reference Bureau’s 2011 World Population Data Sheet and its summary report offer detailed information on 18 population, health, and environment indicators for more than 200 countries. Also online:
* Interactive Map: The World at 7 Billion
* Video: 7 Billion and Counting
* Population Bulletin: “The World at 7 Billion”

Thanks to Steve Salmony for sending this article.  To download it, link to https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5F-idWfw7TeY2YzZTlmMTAtNjRhMC00NDQzLTg2NTItODc0NmI4MTdmYTc5&hl=en_US

Thanks to Bill Rees for this paper he delivered at this year’s Bretton Woods INET Conference.  To download the paper, visit: https://docs.google.com/a/necsp.org/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5F-idWfw7TeMTE3ZDFkMmEtNzk4Ni00ZmNhLWE3MzMtNTZmYTcyNWE4MmEx&hl=en_US&pli=1

From RH Reality Check. See: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/05/18/interested-family-planning

“You Are A Man. Why Are You Interested in Family Planning?”

By Peter Belden, Hewlett Foundation

May 18, 2011 – 2:59pm

It happens frequently when I meet someone new.  We each say what work we do, and then he or she says, “You are a man.  Why are you interested in family planning?”

This is a problem.  Most people perceive family planning and reproductive rights as women’s issues.  I think that is largely the fault of those of us who work in the field of family planning and reproductive rights. We talk primarily about the benefits this field has for women’s health and autonomy.  While these benefits are great, I believe that when we focus only on them, we fail explain to many audiences why they might also be interested in family planning and reproductive rights.

Many men do, of course, care about family planning. They value the ability to plan when to become fathers. They want to be protected against sexually transmitted diseases, and they support the health and wellbeing of women.

However, it is no secret that many people–voters, leaders and politicians–are not particularly interested in women’s health and autonomy.  That is sad and wrong. While we work to change that, we can also simultaneously highlight issues of widespread interest that are greatly affected by family planning.

To read the full article, please click here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/05/18/interested-family-planning

Thanks to Charlie Hall for the following press release. See: https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/25-4

TAKOMA PARK, MD, March 25

Russian Chernobyl Expert Warns of Dire Consequences for Health Around Fukushima

Dense populations and risk of plutonium releases could mean Fukushima accident worse than Chernobyl, prominent Russian scientists says.

Dr. Alexey Yablokov, co-author of and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, warned today that the consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan could be comparable to or potentially greater than the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl reactor explosion on April 26, 1986 in Ukraine.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, DC, Dr. Yablokov said: “We are seeing something that has never happened a multiple reactor catastrophe including one using plutonium fuel as well as spent fuel pool accidents, all happening within 200 kilometers of a metropolis of 30 million people. Because the area is far more densely populated than around Chernobyl, the human toll could eventually be far worse in Japan.”

Dr. Yablokov’s book calculated that as many as one million people had likely died as a result of the Chernobyl accident, figures far higher than other “official” reports. He said the book had been met “mostly with silence” from bodies like the World Health Organization who have “avoided discussion” about the findings.

To read the full release, please click here: https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/25-4

From Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=syndmedia_news&sid=afs5eGr1ZG14&refer=syndmedia%0A%09%09%09

Japan’s Food Chain Threat Multiplies as Radiation Spreads

July 25 (Bloomberg) — Radiation fallout from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant poses a growing threat to Japan’s food chain as unsafe levels of cesium found in beef on supermarket shelves were also detected in more vegetables and the ocean.

More than 2,600 cattle have been contaminated, Kyodo News reported July 23, after the Miyagi local government said 1,183 cattle at 58 farms were fed hay containing radioactive cesium before being shipped to meat markets.

Agriculture Minister Michihiko Kano has said officials didn’t foresee that farmers might ship contaminated hay to cattle ranchers. That highlights the government’s inability to think ahead and to act, said Mariko Sano, secretary general for Shufuren, a housewives organization in Tokyo.

“The government is so slow to move,” Sano said. “They’ve done little to ensure food safety.”

Aeon Co., Japan’s biggest supermarket chain, said today 4,108 kilograms (9,056 pounds) of beef suspected of being contaminated was inadvertantly put on sale at 174 stores across Japan. Supermarkets started testing beef after the Tokyo Metropolitan Government found radioactive cesium in slaughtered cattle this month.

To read the full article, please click here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=syndmedia_news&sid=afs5eGr1ZG14&refer=syndmedia%0A%09%09%09

Thanks to Bob Walker for this OpEd from the Huffington Post.  See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/beware-the-grey-swan_b_863237.html

Beware The ‘Grey Swan’

Robert Walker

Executive Vice-President, Population Institute

Ever since Nassim Taleb penned “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” it’s been fashionable to classify various catastrophes as ‘black swans.’ But most of the disasters now befalling the world are somewhere between probable and highly improbable. As some people have termed it, there are lot of “grey swans” out there, unlikely occurrences that are just likely enough that they should be anticipated.

Six months ago, for example, no one would have predicted that the Mississippi River would see record flooding in 2011 or that a tsunami would cause massive destruction in northern Japan, but it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to recognize that severe weather events are on the rise or that a growing number of people are living in disaster-prone areas.

Indeed, a confluence of events — including climate change, population growth, debt loads and the world ‘s rising demand for food, energy and water — are dramatically increasing the overall levels of risk in the world, and as a consequence, there are a lot more disasters just waiting to happen. And some of these ‘grey swans’ could have secondary impacts with severe and wide-ranging consequences.

Continue Reading »

Thanks to Australian MP Kelvin Thomson for his response to the government’s population strategy.  You can see the comments on Kelvin’s statement at http://kelvinthomson.blogspot.com/2011/05/population-strategy-missed-opportunity.html

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Population Strategy – A Missed Opportunity

COMMENTS ON SUSTAINABLE POPULATION STRATEGY

The Government’s population strategy represents a missed opportunity to put Australia’s population on a sustainable basis and curb our rapid population growth.

The failure to set targets means we are still on our way to Big Australia, with net overseas migration tracking at 180,000 per annum, the number Treasury says will see Australia’s population rise to 36 million by 2050.

I remain concerned that the present rate of population growth – a 60% increase in our population over the next 40 years – will put upward pressure on the cost of housing, electricity, water, food, council rates, and upward pressure on interest rates.

The impact of a 60% increase in Australia’s population on our native wildlife will be catastrophic. Then there is the issue of carbon emissions. The government has promised to cut carbon emissions by 60% over the next 40 years. How are we supposed to cut emissions by 60% if our population is rising by 60% at the same time? It’s pretty hard to reduce your carbon footprint when your keep adding more feet.

I am pleased that the strategy acknowledges the challenges faced by our major cities, such as declining housing affordability and increasing traffic congestion.

I hope that all levels of government – federal, state and local – and all political parties – Labor, Liberal and Greens – will acknowledge the reality of life for people living in the big cities, and abandon plans to grow these cities still bigger. If all levels of government now work together to stabilise the populations of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, this strategy will have achieved something worthwhile.

But I continue to be convinced that another 13 million people will not give us a richer country, it will spread our mineral wealth more thinly and give us a poorer one.

Our aim to lift the participation rate and find work for people who are presently on Job Search Allowance or Disability Support Payments would be much more easily realised if we reduced skilled migration to the level of the mid 90s to give us a net overseas migration level of 70,000.

KELVIN THOMSON, MP

Member for Wills

13/5/2011

Thanks to Lindsey Grant for his very creative proposal as to how the UN can bring its population projections into line with the realities of energy, food and water scarcities.  To download his new NPG Forum paper, The UN 2010 Population Projections:  A Proposal, visit http://www.npg.org/forum_series/TheUN2010PopulationProjectionsAProposal.pdf