The American Public Transportation Authority reports 35% more travelers will use public transportation this summer. They provide this list of the country’s top ten summer city destinations and their expected use of public transportation:

New York City (53 percent - up 5 percent)
Washington, DC (47 percent - up 1 percent)
Boston (48 percent - up 5 percent)
San Francisco (40 percent – remained constant)
Philadelphia (38 percent - up 4 percent)
Chicago (35 percent - up 4 percent)
Seattle (32 percent – up 2 percent)
Las Vegas (30 percent – up 4 percent)
Los Angeles (31 percent – up 5 percent)
Atlanta (25 percent – up 3 percent)

Needless to say in a country where each household owns an average of 2.28 vehicles, this surge in use of public transportation is coming with growing pains. The increase in gas prices is effecting public transportation providers, which will be reflected in the expected increase in fares. Many companies are finding it necessary to increase their fleets and routes. The cost of expanding their operations coupled with the high fuel prices are a concern. Some companies that provide public transportation are making cut backs while others are pressing forward. Overall, it seems those involved in the public transit industry are looking at this increased need for their services as positive.

One of the benefits of living in a free capitalist society is the ability to choose where we spend our money. As Americans we know, money talks! Bus, train, subway or bike….as a society we are joining together and saying no to the rising cost of fuel. There is excitement in the air (and less CO2) as we join together this summer either by choice or forced compliance. I welcome the change!

Other related posts: Public Transit is for Lovers; Why I Sold My Car, or How I Learned to Stop Driving and Love the Bus

Photo Credit: http2007 via Flickr, Creative Commons License

Tim Hurst: What is the Better World Foundation and how did you get involved with the organization?

Mark Leon Goldberg: I should say at the outset that I am not a spokesperson for the Better World Campaign (BWC). I am a consultant to the BWC, which is a sister organization to the United Nations Foundation. But a good description of UNF can be found here. And BWC here.

I am well qualified to speak about how I got involved with them. From 2004 to 2006 I was a writer for the American Prospect magazine, a political monthly here in DC. At the prospect, I wrote about international affairs, specifically the United Nations and other institutions like the International Criminal Court. I’ve been fascinated with these subjects and have followed these issues closely for a long time. As my stint at the prospect was coming to a close, the United Nations Foundation contacted me and asked if I would help them write UN Dispatch, their new blog about the United Nations and international affairs. I readily accepted.

TH: Perhaps you could explain more about what your mission is at On Day One and the UN Dispatch blog. Who is your target audience?

The target audiences of UN Dispatch and On Day One are slightly different, though there is probably much overlap. UN Dispatch was started to fill what was a void in commentary about the United Nations. In general, when blogs mentioned the UN, the commentary tended to be fairly misinformed. UN Dispatch was founded to try and correct some of the misinformation out there about the UN. Our audience tends to be drawn from the advocacy, think tank, international organization and philanthropic communities.

We are very much part of the on-going foreign policy debate that is forever raging in the political blogosphere. We tend to be slightly wonky, but strive to be accessible to a wider audience. We also aggregate global news in a daily round-up we call “Morning Coffee.”

On Day One is slightly different. For a good description of On Day One’s history, goals and audience I will turn this over to On Day One’s leader, Travis Moore of the Better World Campaign.

Travis Moore: At a staff meeting in about June of 2007, our boss, David, announced that he had an idea for a website that would be all about generating a discussion about how best the U.S. can improve its image and work better with the world. He thought, quite prophetically, that we should call it “On Day One,” because the premise of the site would be about ideas that people could submit, vote on and discuss for Day One of the presidents term. So whether that would be closing Guantanamo, upping our Defense budget, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan or submitting Kyoto for ratification, these would be the things that someone—anyone and everyone, thought the next president should do from the get-go of their term.

After we had the concept nailed down, we spent a bit of time designing the site and conceiving of a strategy, allocating resources in-house, and then launched it a year out from Inauguration Day 2009.

In four months we’ve had a great response, with over 1300 ideas, 14,000 votes and 900 ideas. The ideas have come from across the map and political spectrum, from Tibet protesters to Grover Norquist, Ginger Spice to Mohammed Yunus, to the wonky think tank types that you can only find in a city like DC. In the meantime, both Mark and another one of our writers, John, have been keeping their ears to the ground about the all the foreign policy ideas floating and have put together a stellar blog within the frame of “ideas for the next president.” And we feel like we’ve got something pretty special here—I’ve not seen any other site that allows users to interact and engage with each other over the international issues of the day—and we’re looking for as many people to get involved as possible.

TH: For those not as conversant in the language of “agenda setting,” perhaps you could explain a little more about what it is and how you hope to shape the discussion? How do you hope to use the blog project to help communicate your preferences to the next president?

TM: As we get closer to the election, the goal is to really start to get people thinking about what really are the most important items—from each of our 9 “buckets of issues”—that our 44th President should tackle right away. We’ll push people to vote and discuss what they think these issues might be, and then we’ll present the next president with our list, as voted on by the public, of the “top nine for ‘09,” with the hopes that he or she will take them into consideration at the start of their term.”

TH: In all of my graduate work in political science, I don’t ever reading about the role of blogs in shaping the political agenda for the country - this is a completely new phenomenon. Perhaps you could comment on the growing role of social media in politics.

MLG: I think it’s undeniable that blogs, or social networking applications like facebook, myspace or stumble upon are becoming important parts of the conversation here in DC and around the country. Blogs have been responsible for uncovering and advancing some major news stories. One of the original political blogs, Talking Points Memo, even won a prestigious Polk Award this year for their coverage of the attorney firing scandals. The editors at TPM were at the receiving end of a White House document dump, turned the documents over to their readers, and came out with some devastating information about how a number of US Attorneys were fired for their supposed disloyalty to the Bush administration.

Social networking sites like facebook, twitter, stumbleupon can also been co-opted to serve political and journalistic ends. News stories have broken through twitter and facebook, in what blogger Steve Clemons describes as facebook reporting. I also seem to recall reading about how an anti-FARC, human rights rally in Bogota was organized through facebook.

In general, the real power of social networking sites stems from the fact that they make it much, much easier for people with similar interests to find each other, and if so inclined, take collective action.

TH: Personally, I like one of your readers’ suggestions of installing a vegetable garden at the White House. Of all the submissions to On Day One thus far, do you have a personal favorite?

MLG: I try not to endorse any specific ideas, but what was so in interesting about that particular idea is that it let us at On Day One tap into a large network known as the “Kitchen Gardeners International” which is a group of environmentally conscious foodies that promote the use of local and homegrown food. The idea you reference was even picked up by the New York Times, which ran a feature about the movement and its founder Roger Doiron. Kitchen Gardeners turns out to be a very active, and politically engaged community–precisely the kind of people we are trying to engage through On Day One

TH: As I mentioned before, I think this is a really neat project, and wish you all the best with it. Thanks to both you and Travis for all of your thoughtful answers.

MLG: Thank you, Tim. And I should say I am a fan of Red, Green and Blue and your other sites. The kinds of issues you discuss are precisely the issues we hope On Day One will help propel into the national debate as we enter the depths of this campaign season.

Today happens to be a gorgeous, breezy day - perfect for flying the flag, for recreating in the outdoors and for thinking about ways to honor the memory of those who have made our freedom possible. From my own family, I spent some time remembering Uncle Gene, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, my cousin Todd, a career army medic who saved lives in Panama and the Persian Gulf, my father Ray, who repaired gyrocompasses as an enlisted sailor during WWII, and my daughter and her husband who both are currently serving in the US Navy. I also said a prayer for one of my best friends, a classmate who is currently in Talil, Iraq and for all of the other men and women who are doing their best in a challenging situation.

During my thirty years in the US Navy, many of my friends and colleagues have spent a great deal of time and effort either actively involved in protecting America’s interests in the Persian (aka Arabian) Gulf or in planning ways to protect those interests. During the past few years, similar efforts have started to draw more of our attention and resources in a place that most people could not find on a world map - the Gulf of Guinea. It happens to be off the coast of Nigeria, one of Africa’s key oil producing regions.

Though I have taken enough courses in national strategic affairs to recognize why our political and military leaders have determined that keeping a strong military presence in such regions is a good idea, I cannot help but think that it would be a far better investment of our treasure and the lives of our brave defenders to figure out ways to position the US to be able to declare its lack of interest in the internal affairs of oil producing countries.

Readers of Red, Green, and Blue know that there are many ways to reduce our use of oil and natural gas. We need to keep talking about those ways and sharing our ideas and thoughts with both decision makers and with our fellow residents of the planet Earth.

Driving smaller cars - like the Smart Cars that I saw during my morning ride - carpooling, and eliminating unnecessary trips are all quick ways to send the message that we want to slow our oil consumption. Building nuclear power plants fueled with uranium from Australia, Canada and the United States instead of with LNG imported from the same places that currently supply our oil is another way to reinforce the message.

Related posts on Energy Security:

• Price of Gas Concerning … Make a Statement, Avoid the Pump
• Addiction to Oil is not a Good Negotiation Position

Photo Credit - Photos taken on May 26, 2008 by Rod Adams.

In Peru, however, some people depend on resources they can find near where they live– and sometimes this means in or near parks. Without the support of these people countless opportunities to protect ecosystems, animals, plants, and cultures might be lost. Legal protections for parks generally go ignored by people who are in need and often such laws are challenging if not impossible to enforce in remote areas anyway. The key for conservation in Peru and elsewhere seems to rest upon finding a middle ground upon where communities choose to help protect natural resources, while also benefiting from the use of these resources in a sustainable manner.

So how have Peru and countless other countries tried to address this challenge? By inviting people who have a stake in national parks and other protected areas to participate in the creation of plans that will guide how these places are protected and utilized for economic gain. While sometimes extraordinarily successful, it’s not surprising that many of these management plans often fall short, and do not end up accomplishing their goals. The public participation processes used to make management plans are sometimes utilized by park managers as a manipulative means to have communities accept already decided upon objectives, or the goals agreed upon during the processes are not easily achieved or are poorly funded. But these failures might be a thing of the past, as researchers in Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park have perhaps revolutionized conservation through an innovative strategy. It seems to have empowered communities in the buffer zones of the park and won their confidence and support.

Before I write more about this intriguing approach, I want to provide a little bit more background about Cordillera Azul National Park. It was created in 2001 in part because several years earlier 28 previously unknown plant and animal species were discovered inside its boundaries. About the size of the state of Connecticut, the park has diverse ecosystems such as rainforests and is considered a biodiversity hotspot.  Last year, Hilary Del Campo from the University of Florida and Alaka Wali of the Field Museum of Natural History of Chicago published an article about the experimental approach that was used to create the management plan for the park. They discuss how after the boundaries of Cordillera Azul National Park were legalized, the need to create a management plan for the park was crucial. A population of approximately 100,000 people live in the park’s buffer zones. Before the study occurred, it was not entirely clear how all of these people might be influencing the natural resources of the new park for better and worse.

Rather than going down the traditional public participation path, it was decided that the plan would be created using an “asset-based” approach. In the words of Del Campo and Wali, “An asset-based approach recognizes that citizens have gifts and capacities that are operative and highly functional in communities, and can be used to develop conservation programs in conjunction with local people rather than for them.” To apply this approach, the researchers worked with 53 of the 57 communities that existed in the buffer zone of the park to catalogue how people used resources for economic benefit and subsistence.

The researchers also collected information about the identities of communities, local stories and legends, and how the people envisioned their futures. This information was entered into a publicly-accessible database that was linked to GIS maps. The enhanced, information-packed maps provided the basis for understanding which kinds of conservation goals were most universal to the communities and which actions were most desired by them.

The transparency of ideas that the database created helped guide how the park would be managed. So far, according to Del Campo and Wali, the plan that was created through the approach seems to be rolling out effectively. They suggest that the communities are willing helping to protect the park because the guidelines that were created for its use are viewed as fair and reasonable. But I wonder, beyond the generalizations they provide, how do they know this to be true? Is it really possible that 53 communities could work together in harmony?

On another interesting note, contrary to what I would have thought, the data that were collected indicate that the communities are interested primarily in maintaining their agriculturally-based subsistence lifestyles, rather than re-inventing their economic structures with various ecotourism and/or commercial schemes like many other communities in South America have. In turn, because the communities’ desires were collectively understood and pursued as a first priority (rather than those of the park’s first), conservation goals were more positively embraced. Del Campo and Wali note that even “some communities developed important norms for the use of management of game and fish.” There were some limitations to this approach according to authors of the paper as well: it took a lot of time and money, and the conservation professionals who were involved were somewhat weary of the non-traditional approach.

Nonetheless, I think that the “asset-based” approach they have used may serve as a revolutionary model and stepping stone for conservation attempts in the future. I’d like to see more parks try it though, because even they my hopes are high I still question if this approach will work in other places too. If more parks and conservation organizations in the future accept the risk of relinquishing total management power, then we might just find out the answer.

Related on the GO Network

Mark Seall discussed Switzerland’s lead in global environmental performance rankings. Joshua S. Hill discussed Lake Victoria’s declining health and how local populations depend on fish in the lake for subsistence.

Photo of Cordillera Azul National Park courtesy of Flickr under a Creative Commons License.

Interested parties can now let the agency know what they think on EPA’s new interactive Web page (I’d love to a fly on that digital wall). Additionally, agency officials will be made available occasionally online for interactive chat sessions. The first of these was held last Thursday, when EPA’s chief information officer Molly O’Neill was made available for answering questions interactively online.

It is no secret that, under the Bush administration, the EPA has cut back on information available to the public through channels like the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the EPA libraries. The administration has also been under tremendous scrutiny for interference with EPA science on several separate occasions throughout the last seven years. And in a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 900 employees of the EPA feel like their work has been interfered with for political reasons; sixty-percent of those who responded to the Union’s survey encountered some form of executive manipulation.

With new evidence of tampering and data manipulation continuing to mount on what seems like a daily basis, the “national dialogue” could not have come a minute later - that is if the EPA wants to salvage any shred of its rapidly waning legitimacy.

The initiative may indicate a desire on behalf of the EPA to repair the bruised relationships between the agency and the public, and to restore public confidence in the EPA’s ability to perform its duties without political interference from the White House. And while I applaud this effort, perhaps the EPA could adopt their “national dialogue” as a standard practice, as opposed to closing it at the end of June - as if there will be nothing left to say come July.

Related Posts:

“Bush Administration Just Says ‘No’ to Science” :: Red, Green, and Blue (4/2008)

“Thank You Bush for Weakening Smog Limits” :: Red, Green, and Blue (3/2008)