Johansen.se

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of Course

Evidence-Based Happiness for Teachers

What prompted the idea for the course?

I was discouraged. For nearly three decades, as a clinical psychologist, I trained mental health professionals on suicide assessment. The work was good but difficult.

All the while, I watched in dismay as U.S. suicide rates relentlessly increased for 20 consecutive years, from 1999 to 2018, followed by a slight dip during the COVID-19 pandemic, and then a rise in 2021 and 2022 – this despite more local, state and national suicide prevention programming than ever.

I consulted my wife, Rita, who also happens to be my favorite clinical psychologist. We decided to explore the science of happiness. Together, we established the Montana Happiness Project and began offering evidence-based happiness workshops to complement our suicide prevention work.

In 2021, the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, through the University of Montana, awarded us a US$150,000 grant to support the state’s K-12 public school teachers, counselors and staff. We’re using the funds to offer these educators low-cost, online graduate courses on happiness. In spring 2023, the foundation awarded us another $150,000 so we could extend the program through December 2025.

What does the course explore?

Using the word “happiness” can be off-putting. Sometimes, people associate happiness with recommendations to just smile, cheer up and suppress negative emotions – which can lead to toxic positivity.

As mental health professionals, my wife and I reject that definition. Instead, we embrace Aristotle’s concept of “eudaimonic happiness”: the daily pursuit of meaning, mutually supportive relationships and becoming the best possible version of yourself.

The heart of the course is an academic, personal and experiential exploration of evidence-based positive psychology interventions. These are intentional practices that can improve mood, optimism, relationships and physical wellness and offer a sense of purpose. Examples include gratitude, acts of kindness, savoring, mindfulness, mood music, practicing forgiveness and journaling about your best possible future self.

Students are required to implement at least 10 of 14 positive psychology interventions, and then to talk and write about their experiences on implementing them.

Why is this course relevant now?

Teachers are more distressed than ever before. They’re anxious, depressed and discouraged in ways that adversely affect their ability to teach effectively, which is one reason why so many of them leave the profession after a short period of time. It’s not just the low pay – educators need support, appreciation and coping tools; they also need to know they’re not alone.

This exercise helps you focus on what goes right, rather than the things that go wrong.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

The lesson on sleep is especially powerful for educators. A review of 33 studies from 15 countries reported that 36% to 61% of K-12 teachers suffered from insomnia. Although the rates varied across studies, sleep problems were generally worse when teachers were exposed to classroom violence, had low job satisfaction and were experiencing depressive symptoms.

The sleep lesson includes, along with sleep hygiene strategies, a happiness practice and insomnia intervention called Three Good Things, developed by the renowned positive psychologist Martin Seligman.

I describe the technique, in Seligman’s words: “Write down, for one week, before you go to sleep, three things that went well for you during the day, and then reflect on why they went well.”

Next, I make light of the concept: “I’ve always thought Three Good Things was hokey, simplistic and silly.” I show a video of Seligman saying, “I don’t need to recommend beyond a week, typically … because when you do this, you find you like it so much, most people just keep doing it.” At that point, I roll my eyes and say, “Maybe.”

Then I share that I often awakened for years at 4 a.m. with terribly dark thoughts. Then – funny thing – I tried using Three Good Things in the middle of the night. It wasn’t a perfect solution, but it was a vast improvement over lying helplessly in bed while negative thoughts pummeled me.

The Three Good Things lesson is emblematic of how we encourage teachers in our course – using science, playful cynicism and an open and experimental mindset to apply the evidence-based happiness practices in ways that work for them.

I also encourage students to understand that the strategies I offer are not universally effective. What works for others may not work for them, which is why they should experiment with many different approaches.

What will the course prepare students to do?

The educators leave the course with a written lesson plan they can implement at their school, if they wish. As they deepen their happiness practice, they can also share it with other teachers, their students and their families.

Over the past 16 months, we’ve taught this course to 156 K-12 educators and other school personnel. In a not-yet-published survey that we carried out, more than 30% of the participants scored as clinically depressed prior to starting the class, compared with just under 13% immediately after the class.

This improvement is similar to the results obtained by antidepressant medications and psychotherapy.

The educators also reported overall better health after taking the class. Along with improved sleep, they took fewer sick days, experienced fewer headaches and reported reductions in cold, flu and stomach symptoms.

As resources allow, we plan to tailor these courses to other people with high-stress jobs. Already, we are receiving requests from police officers, health care providers, veterinarians and construction workers. Läs mer…

With the 2024 election just weeks away, former President Donald Trump continues to spread false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. He also insists without evidence that the same may happen this year.

In a Sept. 7, 2024, post on Truth Social, Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, repeated the claims he has made over the past four years.

“I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again.”

Trump’s rhetoric bears the hallmarks of the 2020 #StopTheSteal movement: preemptively challenge votes before they are cast, strategically target the most closely contested places, and present election denial as a patriotic duty in response to a grave injustice.

As scholars of political communication, we mapped election fraud claims as they spread across electoral battlegrounds in 2020 and built toward the violence at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. We did this to better understand how a myth could embed itself in the minds of thousands of people across the country, encouraging them toward increasingly extreme action.

Our analysis, published in Politics & Society, revealed patterns that are critical to understanding the upcoming 2024 election.

Those patterns showed that the seeds of election denial were planted early, with spikes during spring elections as early as April 2020. Local claims were spread across the country by politicians and media figures, and small claims of misconduct escalated into larger calls for dramatic action. We believe they risk being repeated.

It appears from Trump’s statements that he and his campaign are ready to repeat the claims of misconduct they spread in 2020 and long after.

Will local Republican Parties serve again as their megaphone?

A social media post from Donald Trump, predicting he will win the 2024 election and that he will then prosecute those whom he claims cheated in the 2020 election.
Screenshot, Truth Social, Donald J. Trump post

Local fraud claims

The past few years have seen significant debate about whether and how to hold Trump, his advisers and the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, accountable for their actions.

The organizational infrastructure that supported the #StopTheSteal movement remains largely intact. People who amplified election fraud claims remain in charge of national and local parties. And there have even been concerted efforts to put allies of this movement in charge of election administration in key places.

This movement was not built only from the top down in the White House or Mar-a-Lago. We found that hundreds of local county political party organizations amplified claims that called the 2020 election into question.

According to our analysis of 410 county Republican Parties’ behavior on Facebook from January 2020 to January 2021, these parties and their members questioned the election’s legitimacy through almost 5,000 posts to an audience of more than half a million followers. These posts began in the spring of 2020, with steep increases in the weeks immediately before and following Election Day.

Some posts were tepid, questioning the existence of “funny numbers” in Michigan or “irregularities” in Wisconsin. Others were more extreme, calling followers to “fight” to “defend the Constitution” or warning that “civil war is coming.” Facebook and its conservative bias that drives higher engagement with right wing content makes it a crucial vehicle for spreading conspiracy theories like these.

Sometimes, local GOP organizations served as a megaphone for Trump and his allies, echoing their claims of fraud to a local audience. These organizations often created their own content, however, giving this national campaign a sense of local urgency.

For example, the Cobb County Republican Party in Georgia amplified false claims made by what they called a local “whistleblower” that Cobb County ballots had been “shredded.”

This claim became part of the national story of election fraud. In fact, Trump referenced these claims of ballot shredding in his infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, when Trump pressured him to “find 11,780 votes.”

Other false claims of election fraud first surfaced at the local level but were amplified nationally as well. False claims included the alleged “lost” flash drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the alleged “17,000 duplicate votes” in Arizona’s Maricopa County and the alleged “20,000 dead people” who voted in Pennsylvania.

Many of these false claims became part of a national narrative of election fraud. They illustrate the crucial role that local claims of fraud, amplified by local party leaders, played in the national struggle to overturn the 2020 election.

Not only did these local party leaders play a role in crafting the story of election fraud, they rallied and transported some of the foot soldiers of Jan. 6. Only a fraction of the thousands of people who heard Trump give a speech on the Ellipse marched to the Capitol; an even smaller group breached its walls. But several local party officials were among the more than 1,200 people charged with crimes at the Capitol that day.

The rhetoric we saw deployed and amplified from local parties, we argue, helped give permission for this action. County party leaders in North Carolina urged their followers to do “something historic” and join “Trump’s Army … on the March to DC.” Other county parties chartered buses or supported caravans to transport their followers to the National Mall that day.

Screenshots of two December 2020 Facebook posts, from the Republican Party of Dane County, Wisconsin, on the left, and the Alcona County Republicans from Michigan on the right.
Facebook

From rhetoric to action

In recent years, the presidential political map has become more predictable. Before voting for president starts, candidates and parties know which states, counties and even precincts are likely to be the most competitive and consequential.

This predictability provides a useful road map for those who would challenge the legitimacy of an election. In 2020, claims of election fraud from Trump and his supporters followed the political map where efforts might be most likely to tip the balance. Their efforts focused on counties with growing Trump support in states where Trump narrowly lost, such as Georgia and Wisconsin.

The #StopTheSteal movement has had four years to study and even attempt to influence and gain control of election processes in the most politically consequential places. It appears that Trump and his allies are gearing up for a similar strategy in 2024, once again putting state and county elections and political institutions in the national spotlight.

But 2024 is not 2020. Americans can anticipate and work to counter the same escalation from claims of fraud, which have already begun, that could end in violence directed at political institutions and lack of confidence in the election outcome.

In the weeks leading up to the election, there are warning signs to watch for.

Are local organizations echoing the claims of fraud made by national leaders? Are they targeting specific jurisdictions before any votes are cast? And are they trying to convince supporters that challenging the election is their moral and civic duty? Are they targeting election administration professionals who are charged with counting the votes?

These are the factors that can turn heated political rhetoric into something more menacing. Läs mer…

About 23 million U.S. households depend on private wells as their primary drinking water source. These homeowners are entirely responsible for ensuring that the water from their wells is safe for human consumption.

Multiple studies show that, at best, half of private well owners are testing with any frequency, and very few households test once or more yearly, as public health officials recommend. Even in Iowa, which has some of the strongest state-level policies for protecting private well users, state funds for free private water quality testing regularly go unspent.

Is the water these households are drinking safe? There’s not much systematic evidence, but the risks may be large.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still relies on a 15-year-old study showing that among 2,000 households, 1 in 5 households’ well water contained at least one contaminant at levels above the thresholds that public water systems must meet. While other researchers have studied this issue, most rely on limited data or data collected over decades to draw conclusions.

I’m an economist studying energy and agriculture issues. In a recent study, I worked with colleagues at Iowa State University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Cornell University to understand drinking water-related behaviors and perceptions of households that use private wells. We focused on rural Iowa, where runoff from agricultural production regularly contaminates public and private drinking water sources.

Basic components of a private water well.
EPA

We found that few households followed public health guidance on testing their well water, but a simple intervention – sending them basic information about drinking water hazards and easy-to-use testing materials – increased testing rates. The burden of dealing with contamination, however, falls largely on individual households.

Nitrate risks

We focused on nitrate, one of the main well water pollutants in rural areas. Major sources include chemical fertilizers, animal waste and human sewage.

Drinking water that contains nitrate can harm human health. Using contaminated water to prepare infant formula can cause “blue baby syndrome,” a condition in which infants’ hands and lips turn bluish because nitrate interferes with oxygen transport in the babies’ blood. Severe cases can cause lethargy, seizures and even death. The EPA limits nitrate levels in public water systems to 10 milligrams per liter to prevent this effect.

Studies have also found that for people of all ages, drinking water with low nitrate concentrations over long periods of time is strongly associated with chronic health diseases, including colorectal cancer and thyroid disease, as well as neural tube defects in developing fetuses.

Nitrate pollution is pervasive across the continental U.S. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to determine whether water contains unsafe nitrate concentrations. Test strips, similar to those used in swimming pools, are cheap and readily available.

Heavily agricultural areas are vulnerable to nitrate pollution in water, especially where aquifers are shallow. Areas at the highest risk of nitrate contamination in shallow groundwater generally have high nitrogen inputs to the land, well-drained soils and high ratios of croplands to woodlands.
USGS

The water’s fine … or not

Mailing lists of households with private wells are hard to come by, so for our study we digitized over 22,000 addresses using maps from 14 Iowa counties. We targeted counties where public water systems had struggled to meet EPA safety standards for nitrate in drinking water, and where private wells that had been tested over the past 20 years showed nitrate concentrations at concerning levels.

We received responses from over half of the households we surveyed. Of those, just over 8,100 (37%) used private wells.

Nitrate measurements in domestic wells in Iowa from 2002 to 2022, from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources public water-testing program. Counties targeted in Lade et al.’s 2024 review are highlighted in red.
Lade et al., 2024, CC BY-ND

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing annually for nitrate, just 9% of these households had tested their water quality in the past year.

More concerning, 40% of this group used their wells for drinking water, had not tested it in the past year, and did not filter the water or use other sources such as bottled water. They were drinking straight from the tap without knowing whether their water was safe.

Our survey also showed that, despite living in high-risk areas, 77% of households classified their well water quality as “good” or “great.” This may be driven by a “not in my backyard” mentality. Households in our survey were more likely to agree with the statement that nitrate is a problem in the state of Iowa than to perceive nitrates as a problem in their local area.

Climate change is likely to worsen nitrate contamination in well water. In regions including the Great Lakes basin, increases in heavy rainfall are projected to carry rising amounts of nutrients from farmlands into waterways and groundwater.

Nitrate contamination is often thought of as a rural problem, but in California it also has shown up in urban areas.

Providing information and tools helps

To see whether education and access to testing materials could change views about well water, we sent a mailer containing a nitrate test strip, information about risks associated with nitrate in drinking water, and contact information for a free water quality testing program run by the state of Iowa to a random 50% of respondents from our first survey. We then resurveyed all households, whether or not they received the mailer.

Over 40% of households that received test strips reported that they had tested their water, compared with 24% of those that did not receive the mailer. The number of respondents who reported using Iowa’s free testing program also increased, from 10% to 13%, a small but statistically meaningful impact.

Less encouragingly, households that received the mailer were no more likely to report filtering or avoiding their water than those that did not receive the mailer.

Households bear the burden

Our results show that lack of information makes people less likely to test their well water for nitrate or other contaminants. At least for nitrate, helping households overcome this barrier is cheap. We asked respondents about their willingness to pay for the program and found that the average household was willing to pay as much as US$13 for a program that would cost the state roughly $5 to implement.

However, we could not determine whether our outreach decreased households’ exposure to contaminated drinking water. It’s also not clear whether people would be as willing to test their well water in states such as Wisconsin or Oregon, where testing would cost them up to a few hundred dollars.

As of 2024, just 24 states offered well water testing kits for at least one contaminant that were free or cost $100 or less. And while most states offer information about well water safety, some simply post a brochure online.

The upshot is that rural households are bearing the costs associated with unsafe well water, either through health care burdens or spending for treatment and testing. Policymakers have been slow to address the main source of this problem: nitrate pollution from agriculture.

In one exception, state agencies in southeastern Minnesota are providing free well water quality testing and offering a few households filtration systems in cases where their wells are laden with nitrate from local agricultural sources. However, this effort began only after environmental advocates petitioned the EPA.

If state and federal agencies tracked more systematically the costs to households of dealing with contaminated water, the scale of the burden would be clearer. Government agencies could use this information in cost-benefit assessments of conservation programs.

On a broader scale, I agree with experts who have called for rethinking agricultural policies that encourage expanding crops associated with high nutrient pollution, such as corn. More restoration of wetlands and prairies, which filter nutrients from surface water, could also help. Finally, while the Environmental Protection Agency can’t force well owners to test or treat their water, it could provide better support for households when pollutants turn up in their drinking water. Läs mer…

The U.S. Supreme Court will test how flexible the EPA and states can be in regulating water pollution under the Clean Water Act when it hears oral argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency on Oct. 16, 2024. This case asks the court to decide whether federal regulators can issue permits that are effectively broad orders not to violate water quality standards, or instead may only specify the concentrations of individual pollutants that permit holders can release into water bodies.

My research focuses on water issues, including the Clean Water Act. This case involves both federal and state authority to issuing permits, and it will be interesting to see where the court focuses. While justices have been willing to limit the EPA’s authority under the act, they traditionally have allowed states broad authority to protect water quality. Thus, while some fear that this case is yet another occasion for the court to limit the EPA’s authority, California’s involvement may have exactly the opposite effect.

Standards for treating sewage

The 1972 Clean Water Act prohibits any “discharge of a pollutant” without a permit into water bodies such as rivers, lakes and bays that are subject to federal regulation. San Francisco has a combined sewage treatment plant and stormwater control system, the Oceanside plant, which discharges treated sewage and stormwater into the Pacific Ocean through eight pipes, or “outfalls.”

San Francisco’s Oceanside water treatment plant is built into a hollowed-out hill in the southwest corner of the city and discharges to the Pacific Ocean.
Pi.1415926535/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

The California State Water Resources Control Board is in charge of seven outfalls that release treated water close to shore, in state waters. But the facility’s main pipe discharges in federal waters more than 3 miles out to sea, so it is regulated by the EPA.

To comply with the law, polluters must obtain permits through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The city and county of San Francisco have held a permit for the Oceanside facility since 1997.

Discharge permit requirements can be both quantitative and qualitative. For example, the EPA establishes standard effluent limitations that dictate how clean the discharger’s waste stream must be. The agency sets these technology-based limitations according to the methods available in the relevant industry to clean up polluted wastewater.

Numeric targets tell the discharger clearly how to comply with the law. For example, sewage treatment plants must keep the pH value of their wastewater discharges between 6.0 and 9.0. As long as the plant meets that standard and other effluent limitations, it is in compliance.

San Francisco monitors beach water quality year-round and issues alerts when bacteria levels make water contact unsafe. This can happen after the city’s water treatment system is overwhelmed during major storms.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

What counts as ‘clean’?

A second approach focuses not on the specific content of the discharge but rather on setting standards for what counts as a “clean” water body.

Under the Clean Water Act, Congress gives states authority to establish water quality standards for each water body within their territory. First, the state identifies the uses it wants the ocean, river, lake or bay to support, such as swimming, providing habitat for fish or supplying drinking water.

Next, state regulators determine what characteristics the water has to have to support those uses. For example, to support cold-water fish such as perch and pike, the water may need to remain below a certain temperature. These characteristics become the water quality criteria for that water body.

Sometimes technology-based effluent limitations in a polluter’s permit aren’t stringent enough to ensure that a water body meets its water quality standards. When that happens, the Clean Water Act requires the permitting agency to adjust its permit requirements to ensure that water quality standards are met.

That’s what happened with the Oceanside plant. During rainstorms, runoff sometimes overwhelms the plant’s sewage treatment system, dumping a mixture of sewage and storm runoff directly into the Pacific Ocean – an event known as a combined sewer overflow. These episodes can cause violations of water quality standards. Area beaches sometimes are closed to swimming when bacterial counts in the water are high.

In combined sewer systems, during dry weather and small storms, all flows are handled by the publicly owned treatment works. During large storms, the relief structure allows some of the combined stormwater and sewage to be discharged untreated to an adjacent water body.
USEPA

These aren’t small-scale releases. In a separate legal action, the federal government and the state of California are suing San Francisco for discharging more than 1.8 billion gallons of sewage on average every year since 2016 into creeks, San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

The complaint asserts that San Francisco has not significantly upgraded its combined sewer overflow system in the past 25 years, and that the system is failing to meet standards in the city’s and county’s Clean Water Act permits.

When the EPA and California issued the Oceanside plant’s current permit in 2019, they included two general standards. The first requires that Oceanside’s “[d]ischarge shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard.” The second states that “[n]either the treatment nor the discharge of pollutants shall create pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined under California law.

The city and county of San Francisco argue that their permit terms aren’t fair because they can’t tell how to comply. Their petition to the court asserts that Clean Water Act permits should function like recipes that restrict specific ingredients in a dish, rather than telling cooks not to make the dish “too salty.”

The Supreme Court will decide whether such narrative permit terms are legal.

The Environmental Protection Agency and California water officials are suing San Francisco, accusing the city of allowing its sewer systems to fall into disrepair.

What’s legal, what’s fair

In its brief, the EPA invokes Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, which allows permit writers to insert “any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards,” into the permit. The agency argues that this phrase allows for narrative permit terms – a position that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The city and county argue that “any more stringent limitation” still has to be a numeric, end-of-the-pipe requirement. They also contend that the very general requirements in the Oceanside plant’s discharge permit fail to give notice of what’s actually required for compliance, leaving the city vulnerable to penalties and lawsuits.

The key question, then, is how much flexibility regulators and regulated entities get. If state environmental agencies and the EPA have to translate every water quality criterion into a numeric effluent limitation, permit writers could be overwhelmed. Or, as the EPA warns in its brief, they could impose very stringent requirements to ensure that the discharge won’t violate water quality standards.

For example, some sewage treatment plants can and do treat sewage to drinking water standards. Requiring San Francisco to do this would ensure that discharges from the Oceanside plant did not make waters offshore unusable. It also would make clear how to comply with the law. However, it would require expensive upgrades to the plant.

It’s unusual to see a liberal, pro-environment city such as San Francisco challenge the EPA, with support from trade groups such as the National Mining Association that also see the EPA’s approach as too vague. Conversely, all 14 states that joined one of the two state amicus briefs filed in this case are on the agency’s side – a sign that state environmental regulators want flexibility in setting targets for polluters.

If the justices are content to merely interpret what Congress meant by allowing “any more stringent limitation” in permits, then the EPA has the stronger case. If they focus on fairness, however, San Francisco has a good argument – especially before a court that has already issued multiple decisions curbing federal regulatory power. Läs mer…

Though cynics may question her motives, Kamala Harris’ recent call to ban price gouging on groceries has received a lot of attention – and for good reason.

The cost of food has been a big concern for Americans since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, with U.S. food prices rising 25% between 2019 and 2023. While U.S. food inflation slowed considerably in 2024, grocery prices are still up from prepandemic numbers.

Price hikes like this are as painful as they are aggravating, and they can have real effects on both household spending and the broader economy. So it’s not surprising that the topic is coming up on the campaign trail.

But oftentimes, complexity can get lost amid the politicking. Here, economic history – and economic historians like me – can provide some context.

How Americans spend their food dollars

For starters, despite the run-up in food prices in the U.S., there’s little evidence of price gouging in the grocery industry today.

“Price gouging” is notoriously difficult to define, but the term is usually invoked after a supply or demand shock of some kind, when sellers are said to take advantage and jack up prices, particularly for basics such as food or gasoline. Concern over “gouging” goes way back – in some ways, it can be seen as an outgrowth of medieval Christian injunctions against mercantile greed.

Although many states have laws on the books against price gouging, such laws have proved difficult to enforce. In the case of the U.S. grocery industry, profit margins — traditionally razor-thin at about 1% or 2% — remain small even today.

What’s more, it’s important to note that food prices in the U.S. — relatively speaking — are the cheapest in the world, and have been for a long time. This is the case whether measured in terms of disposable personal income or in terms of percentage of household expenditures.

For example, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows that in 2023 — the most recent year for which data are available — Americans spent about 11.2% of their disposable personal income – or income after taxes – on food. That was unchanged from 2022.

This includes expenditures for both food at home — generally purchased at supermarkets and other grocery stores — and food purchased “away” at restaurants and the like. Interestingly, the “away” component has been growing as a proportion of total food spending since the onset of COVID-19.

Grocery prices around the world

No one likes to pay more for food, but a little comparative data can reduce one’s sense of victimization, if not alleviate the pocketbook pain.

Cross-national data compiled by the USDA shows that in 2022, Americans spent less on food as a proportion of total consumer expenditures than people in any other country. People in many other nations spent two, three or four times as much in percentage terms, and sometimes even more.

The differences were greatest between the U.S. and low-income countries in South Asia and Africa – Bangladesh, Myanmar and Ethiopia, for example – but were also quite sizable between the U.S. and middle-income countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, Costa Rica and Mexico.

These differences aren’t altogether surprising. Why not? Because as the German statistician Ernst Engel first noted in the middle of the 19th century, as family or household income increases, the proportion of the total spent on food declines. After all, you can only eat so much no matter how rich you are.

Scholars have found that Engel’s insight still applies in the contemporary world, which provides context for the sharp distinctions between low-income and middle-income countries and the U.S.

That said, however, there are big differences between the U.S. and other high-income countries such as Japan, Sweden, Norway, France and Italy, with the U.S. percentage spent on food considerably lower than in any of these other rich countries. This is because economies of scale are more important in American agriculture, among other reasons.

To be sure, if so inclined, one can point to certain negative environmental externalities in American food production and question the ways animals and laborers are treated in the American food system, which prizes efficiency — or at least low prices — above all else.

But food that is dirt cheap in comparative terms, even in a time of rising food prices, is a problem virtually every other nation in the world would love to have. Läs mer…

Communities across the world are facing two worsening crises: a climate crisis and a care crisis.

The evidence and urgency on the climate crisis has been expertly illustrated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The root cause of this crisis is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is due to excessive exploitation of fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial processes. In short, it is a result of development processes that have not been based on caring for the environment.

Less discussed is the care crisis. This refers to a society’s capacity to maintain livelihoods in households, raise children and sustain communities. In short, the care crisis is a result of not investing enough in caring for each other.

Addressing these crises requires acknowledgement of the interdependency of people, other species and the physical environment. Our failure to invest sufficiently in caring for each other, other species and our environment is a root cause of climate change. We refer to this as the “care-climate nexus”. As the effects of climate change intensify, we will need to care for each other more than ever before, and we need systems to enable better care of our environment.

There is a growing discussion linking gender and climate change. However, the links between climate change and care have been largely under-researched.

The climate crisis stems, similarly to the care crisis, from an economic paradigm that undervalues care – both for each other and for our physical environment. The concept of care therefore can serve as a powerful focal point for understanding the climate challenge and for policies towards a sustainable and equitable future.

This is the gap that the “care-climate nexus” project led by the Southern Centre for Inequality studies, in collaboration with the International Development Research Centre and a group of feminist economists and climate scientists from across the world, plans to fill.

The research project has two main objectives. First, to map the conceptual links between climate change and care.

Second, to inform and support policymakers to include care in climate policy. For example, significant investments in quality care that supports climate adaptation are as important as building resilient infrastructure and can reduce the burden on those who carry out care work. Climate policy that does not centre care risks replicating or even exacerbating structural inequalities.

Undervaluing care and nature

The climate and care crises have resulted from the undervaluing of two things – nature and care work.

Indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) place value on – and reward – unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. Too little – or no – value is placed on the natural environment. The consequences are proving dire. Continued exploitation of raw materials and natural resources has come at the expense of the environment. The undervaluing of nature has caused pollution, loss of habitats, extinction of species and declining biodiversity.

Similarly, no value is placed on unpaid care work. What is measured and “valuable” in the calculations of GDP in an economy excludes unpaid care work, even though it is essential for sustaining livelihoods and therefore economic activity.

Care work has been cast as “women’s work”, although men do it too. On average, women and girls in the global south undertake over three times more unpaid care work than men.

The disproportionate responsibility for this work restricts women and girls’ opportunities to pursue education or employment. The undervaluation of care work reflects gender norms that regard women’s work as inherently less valuable and as something that is endless and free.

Climate change poses threats to food security, water accessibility, health and livelihoods, among many other impacts. Unpaid or under-paid tasks like providing food, collecting water and caring for the young, ill and elderly will be made more difficult by the impacts of climate change.

As we have shown above, these tasks are often, but not exclusively, carried out by women. There is also a growing trend in the global North for this work to be outsourced to women immigrants and the working class.

Anchoring care in climate policy

It is possible for humans to contribute to the regeneration of the environment instead of its depletion. But this calls for a rethink: what we value and whether this is represented in our current economic systems and policies.

The care-climate nexus conceptual framework makes two key arguments:

One is for an expansive view of care that goes beyond person-to-person care to include caring for the environment. Centering care in responding to the climate crisis requires understanding diverse meanings and articulations of care, that include understandings of care in different contexts from the global South.
Second, care is not only a practical concern but also an ethical and political one. It involves recognising that everything we do to maintain, continue, and repair our world is significant and crucial for life on Earth.

A focus on care and climate change means understanding and addressing interconnected socio-economic challenges. These include:

the impact of climate change on the provision of care. Climate change adds to the unequal burden of unpaid caregiving and care work, which carries substantial economic and social repercussions.
the conditions of care work. The labour that goes into maintaining households, raising and birthing children and sustaining communities more broadly is being undermined by an economic and social system that systematically undervalues care.
the protection of farm workers’ rights. Many in rural communities in the global South work on farms, where their agricultural labour is seen as an extension of their domestic care duties and is often precarious. Yet rural communities often do more than their share of environmental care. These forms of work should be protected and valued.
the impact of the privatisation of public and social services on the provision of care. The growing privatisation of care services globally, like healthcare, and cuts in public expenditure on these vital services, has made it difficult for the majority to obtain proper care. Quality healthcare, for example, is out of reach for many.
addressing the fact that care work extends beyond domestic work and includes caring for nature, land and animals.

The central theme of the upcoming annual Conference of the Parties (COP) in November is climate finance. COP is a multilateral forum that deliberates on global climate policy: this is a crucial space to emphasise and put forward proposals for better resourced caring economies as a way to build climate resilience.

This article is part of a series of articles initiated through a project led by the Southern Centre for Inequality studies, in collaboration with the International Development Research Centre and a group of feminist economists and climate scientists across the world. Läs mer…

Extreme climate events — floods, droughts and heatwaves — are not just becoming more frequent; they are also more severe.

It’s important to understand how communities can recover from these events in ways that also build resilience to future events.

In a recent study, we analysed how communities affected by the extreme flood events of 2021 in Germany’s Ahr Valley and in Lagos, Nigeria, grappled with recovery from floods.

Our aim was to identify the factors – and combinations of factors – that served as barriers (or enablers) to recovery from disasters.

We found that financial limitations, political interests and administrative hurdles led to prioritising immediate relief and reconstruction over long-term sustainable recovery.

In both cases immediate and long-term recovery efforts were siloed, underfunded and focused on reconstruction to pre-disaster conditions.

We concluded from our findings that the success of recovery efforts lies in balancing short-term relief and a long-term vision. While immediate aid is essential after a disaster, true resilience hinges on proactive measures that address systemic challenges and empower communities to build a better future.

Recovery should not be merely action-oriented and building back infrastructure (engineering). It should also include insights in other areas, like governance and psychology, helping people to deal with losses and to heal.

What worked

To understand the recovery pathways of the two regions, we reviewed relevant literature, newspaper articles and government documents. We also interviewed government agencies, NGO representatives, volunteers and local residents in the communities where these floods occurred.

We found that in the Ahr Valley, recovery wasn’t just about rebuilding structures, it was about empowering individuals.

Through initiatives like mental health and first aid courses, residents learned to support one another. This fostered a sense of community and resilience that was essential for meeting the emotional challenges posed by the disaster.

The focus on rebuilding with a sustainable vision also included environmental initiatives. For example, a type of heating system was put in place that didn’t rely on fossil fuels.

Not only did this reduce carbon emissions, it also served as a symbol of hope. It showed there was an opportunity to create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly community.

In Lagos, too, residents found strength in community and innovation. Grassroots efforts using sustainable materials like bamboo and palm wood highlighted the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the people. Faith-based organisations provided material aid as well as emotional and spiritual support. This reinforced the bonds that held the community together.

Each community faced unique challenges. But they shared a common thread: the importance of adaptive governance – flexible decision-making and strong community ties.

For example, established building codes in the Ahr Valley provided a framework for reconstruction, ensuring that new structures were resilient and safe.

In Lagos, the absence of strong government support highlighted the critical role of community organisations in providing services and fostering a sense of shared responsibility.

What needs improvment

In both the Ahr Valley and Lagos, the journey towards recovery has been fraught with obstacles as well.

In the Ahr Valley, bureaucratic red tape has become a formidable barrier. Residents, eager to rebuild their lives, find themselves entangled in a complex web of regulations and lengthy approval processes. This has delayed their access to insurance and recovery funds. Waiting for months or even years has eroded hope and fuelled a sense of abandonment.

Meanwhile, in Lagos, insufficient government support has left communities to fend for themselves, creating a breeding ground for uncertainty and conflict.

Land tenure disputes, fuelled by a lack of clear property rights, sow seeds of distrust and hinder resettlement efforts. Political disagreements complicate the picture, as competing interests divert attention and resources away from those who need them most.

In Lagos, none of the respondents reported having insurance to help them to recover from disaster-related losses.

While some residents in the Ahr Valley did have insurance, many were under-insured.

The Ahr Valley’s building codes offer a framework for reconstruction. But it’s clear that processes should be streamlined so communities can take ownership of their recovery.

In Lagos, the importance of robust social safety nets is clear. Partnerships between communities and authorities are also needed.

A different approach

Recovery isn’t a separate process that occurs after disasters only. It should be seen as an essential part of managing risks. It’s important to understand what recovery involves and what resources are needed.

This will help reduce future risks and increase resilience after extreme events.

Governments should encourage flexible governance structures that value community voices and local knowledge to enable recovery. A good example is the New Orleans Recovery Authority, established after Hurricane Katrina. It involved local residents and city officials in planning and rebuilding efforts.

Grassroots efforts in Lagos demonstrated the power of sustainable materials and community-led initiatives. Seeing things from the community’s point of view can help tailor solutions that fit the situation and adapt to evolving challenges.

Training and capacity-building programmes empower communities to be active in their own recovery.

Mental health and first aid courses were successful in the Ahr Valley. Equipping individuals with skills in sustainable practices and disaster preparedness helps weave a social fabric capable of weathering future storms. Läs mer…

In a speech to the New South Wales and South Australian government social media summit today, Federal Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland announced more details of how the federal government’s proposed social media ban would actually work.

The government first announced the ban last month, shortly after SA said it will ban children under 14 from social media. But experts have heavily criticised the idea, and this week more than 120 experts from Australia and overseas wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and state and territory premiers urging a rethink.

Despite this, the government appears to be ploughing ahead with the proposed ban. The details Rowland announced today do not meaningfully address many of the criticisms made over the past few weeks.

In fact, they actually raise new problems.

What are the details of the social media ban?

In her speech, Rowland said the government will amend the Online Safety Act to “place the onus on platforms, not parents or young people” to enforce the proposed social media ban.

The changes will be implemented over 12 months to give industry and the regulator time to implement key processes.

The government says it “will set parameters to guide platforms in designing social media that allows connections, but not harms, to flourish”. These parameters could address some of the “addictive” features of these platforms, for instance by limiting potential harms by prioritising content feeds from accounts people follow, or making age-appropriate versions of their apps.

The government is also considering an:

exemption framework to accommodate access for social media services that demonstrate a low risk of harm to children.

NSW Premier Chris Minns (right) and SA Premier Peter Malinauskas organised the two-day social media summit.
Bianca De Marchi/AAP

The problem with “low risk”

But allowing young people to access social media platforms that have a demonstrated “low risk of harm” is fraught with issues.

Risk is difficult to define – especially when it comes to social media.

As I explained earlier this year around potential harms of artificial intelligence, risk “sits on a spectrum and is not absolute”. Risk cannot be determined simply by considering a social media platform itself, or by knowing the age of the person using it. What’s risky for one person may not be risky for someone else.

How, then, will the government determine which social media platforms have a “low risk of harm”?

Simply focusing on technical changes to social media platform design in determining what constitutes “low risk” will not address key areas of potential harm. This may give parents a false sense of security when it comes to the “low-risk” solutions technology companies offer.

Let’s assume for a moment that Meta’s new “teen-friendly” Instagram accounts qualify as having a “low risk of harm” and young people would still be allowed to use them.

The teen version of Instagram will be set to private by default and have stronger content restrictions in place than regular accounts. It will also allow parents to see the categories of content children are accessing, and the accounts they follow, but will still require parental oversight.

But this doesn’t solve the risk problem.

There will still be harmful content on social media. And young people will still be exposed to it when they are old enough to have an unrestricted account, potentially without the support and guidance they need to safely engage with it. If children don’t gain necessary skills for navigating social media at an early age, potential harms may be deferred, rather than addressed and safely negotiated with parental support.

A better approach

The harmful content on social media platforms doesn’t just pose a risk to young people. It poses a risk to everybody – adults included. For this reason, the government’s heavy focus on encouraging platforms to demonstrate a “low risk of harm” only to young people seems a little misguided.

A better approach would be to strive to ensure social media platforms are safe for all users, regardless of their age. Ensuring platforms have mechanisms for users to report potentially harmful content – and for platforms to remove inappropriate content – is crucial for keeping people safe.

Platforms should also ensure users can block accounts, such as when a person is being bullied or harassed, with consequences for account holders found to engage in such harmful behaviour.

It is important that government requirements for “low-risk” accounts include these and other mechanisms to identify and limit harmful content at source. Tough penalties for tech companies that fail to comply with legislation are also needed.

The federal government could also provide extra resources for parents and children, to help them to navigate social media content safely.

A report released this week by the New South Wales government showed 91% of parents with children aged 5–17 believe “more should be done to teach young people and their parents about the possible harms of social media”.

The SA government appears to be heeding this message. Today it also announced a plan for more social media education in schools.

Providing more proactive support like this, rather than pursuing social media bans, would go a long way to protecting young Australians while also ensuring they have access to helpful and supportive social media content. Läs mer…

Developing countries like Indonesia use foreign high-skilled and high-wage workers to drive economic growth and innovation. However, protection of their legal rights is often neglected, affecting these workers’ productivity and well-being and Indonesia’s reputation as a destination country for employment.

My research delves into the flaws of Indonesia’s labour market institutions, such as the national labour dispute settlement system, revealing that current mechanisms are inadequate in protecting the rights of high-skilled foreign workers.

The study

My findings show the national dispute settlement system exhibits significant systemic shortcomings, such as processing cases slowly and siding with employers, which limit its capacity to protect all workers effectively. But disputes involving foreign workers are further complicated by the fact that immigration law allows employers to cancel residence permits, meaning that the government requires the workers to leave the country even though the workers may have been unfairly dismissed.

Foreign workers are mainly from Northeast Asia (China, Japan and Korea), and their use on investment-tied projects coupled with Indonesia’s downstreaming programme will ensure their numbers continue to grow. In 2023, the Indonesian government issued 168,048 permits for foreigners to work in Indonesia with the top three destinations being Central Sulawesi (18,678), Jakarta (13,862) and West Java (10,807). By July 2024, the government had already issued more than 14% more permits than by the same time the previous year.

My study examined 92 labour disputes involving foreign workers between 2006 (when the new national dispute settlement system was implemented) and 2022, which were settled by the Industrial Relations Court. One additional dispute was filed in 2023, but the Industrial Relations Court has not yet published the settlement despite a legal requirement to do so.

I complemented these court settlements with 98 qualitative interviews with other stakeholders, including policymakers, labour rights activists, legal professionals, and other foreign workers, such as foreign spouses, remote workers and digital nomads.

As in other countries too, the number of registered labour disputes is only the tip of the iceberg, as workers tend to cut their losses and move on rather than invest time, energy and limited financial resources in challenging their better-resourced employers.

Employers were all Indonesian companies, so no foreign workers who filed a lawsuit worked for a multinational company, and those who did so had at least 20 nationalities.

CC BY

In terms of geographical distribution, the studied disputes were settled in 13 local jurisdictions, and were mostly lodged by workers rather than employers.

The nature of the disputes mostly involved claims that an employment contract had been terminated prematurely (87 cases), while a much smaller number involved resignation (4 cases) or were unknown (1 case). Of the 92 claims, 83 were initiated by workers, and eight by an employer. In one case, the lodging party was not recorded in the final decision.

Hiring a private lawyer

Employers used the Immigration Law to undermine the protective role of the Manpower Law – as it stands foreign workers are only entitled to employment protection if they hold a valid residence permit, which employers can and do shorten. Doing so shows that the Indonesian government prioritizes the flexibility of employers at the expense of employment protection for foreign workers.

In at least 92% cases, foreign workers used paid assistance of a private lawyer to represent themselves at formal meetings and hearings required by the Disputes Settlement Law, the cost of which could be hefty.

As one foreign worker explained:

It’s always in the back of your mind, to do whatever to make employers happy if you want to stay. No matter what the work permit and contract say, they can ask immigration to kick us out within a week!“

A retired government official responsible for designing policy regarding foreign workers was surprised when he heard this, explaining that:

I thought they could look after themselves because they earn such high wages. Well, higher than the average Indonesian worker, that is.

Hiring a private lawyer is the only way to represent themselves throughout the dispute resolution process because they need to leave Indonesia once they are fired. Not having the legal right to remain in Indonesia makes it very difficult – even impossible – to do it without them.

Addressing institutional failures

Engaging a private lawyer served as an ‘institutional fix’ that enabled most foreign workers to engage with Indonesia’s labour dispute settlement system by attending formal meetings and hearings, as well as filling out required paperwork and sending essential letters and replies.

Addressing this institutional failure requires a shift in law and policy. Firstly, legal reforms are essential to ensure that immigration and employment laws are integrated to enable foreign workers to have access to legal processes intended to help protect labour rights. At a minimum, this would involve amending policy to prevent employers from cancelling residence permits so that foreign workers need to leave the country prematurely.

Alternatively, the Directorate-General of Immigration could still permit employers to do so, but then provide the affected foreign workers with a limited-stay visa so that they can remain in Indonesia to engage with the legal process. The Hong Kong Immigration Department does this for Indonesian migrant workers.

Secondly, there is a need for enhanced support systems that provide immediate and effective assistance to foreign workers. Government agencies tasked with settling labour disputes, such as local manpower offices and the Industrial Relations Court, should be equipped with adequate resources and trained personnel to handle migrant labour issues. Doing so would decrease the reliance of foreign workers on private lawyers.

Failure to protect the employment rights of foreign workers has the potential to damage Indonesia’s reputation as a destination country for employment. Such damage could undermine Indonesia’s ambitious plans to build a new capital city (Ibu Kota Nusantara) with the assistance of foreign workers, and undermine the government’s downstreaming programme, which helps Indonesia earn more from the export of raw minerals. Läs mer…

As a urogynaecologist I care exclusively for women with pelvic floor problems. These are the women with leaking bladders and weak supporting tissues allowing the vaginal walls to bulge outside.

Pelvic organ prolapse can be distressing or embarrassing and interfere with everyday activities. But it’s also common. For many women treatment is simple, effective and doesn’t involve surgery.

What is it pelvic organ prolapse?

Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when the supporting muscles and ligaments holding up the vagina are weakened, allowing the vaginal tissues to sag or stretch. The pelvic organs behind the vaginal walls – such as the bladder, bowel and uterus – can then drop out of position.

One or more organ may be involved. But other than being out of position, there is not necessarily any problem with how these organs function.

Prolapse is usually described according to which organ has dropped, for example “bladder prolapse” (cystocele). Severity is graded according to extent the vaginal wall has descended from its previous position.

Prolapse can occur when the pelvic muscles holding organs in place are weakened.
Pepermpron/Shutterstock

What does it feel like?

Most women don’t know an organ or organs have prolapsed until they notice a protrusion from the vaginal opening. They may feel a soft lump bulging in the vagina when they’re washing.

Many simply feel aware “something is coming down”.

Other women may notice they can’t trust their bladder not to leak when they’re jumping on a trampoline or running at the gym. Or perhaps they find it harder to keep a tampon in position than it was before children.

How common is it?

Prolapse is very common and its likelihood increases with age. Based on routine vaginal examination (for example, for cervical screening), easily 50% of women in developed countries will be classified as having prolapse. Most of these will have no symptoms at all.

When defined by symptoms such as a vaginal bulge or difficulty passing urine, around 5% will have specific symptoms.

What causes pelvic organ prolapse?

Pregnancy and vaginal birth generally cause physical changes, such as relaxation of the vaginal tissues. For most women these are minor, but for some, prolapse can seriously impact quality of life.

After pregnancy some women may find they need to adjust physical activities – particularly high impact exercise or repetitive heavy lifting – as this can make prolapse symptoms more noticeable.

Women who give birth via caesarean section are less likely to experience prolapse and incontinence. However as caesareans have their own risk of serious complications, they can’t be recommended purely to avoid pelvic floor issues.

After vaginal delivery, ageing is the second-most common cause of prolapse. This is because the strength of the pelvic floor deteriorates as we age and especially after menopause.

Excessive weight lifting and high-impact exercise can also weaken these muscles.

Chronic lung problems, diabetes, high cholesterol, constipation and obesity further increase the severity of prolapse and incontinence.

Some women also have genetically poorer quality connective tissues, making them more at risk.

How is it treated?

Severe prolapse, which persistently extends through the vagina and causes significant discomfort, is often managed with surgery.

But it is not always required. In developed countries, only 6-18% of those diagnosed with pelvic prolapse will have surgery.

For milder cases, a clinician will usually recommend pelvic floor therapy.

Specific exercises can help strengthen the pelvic floor during pregnancy and after child birth.
Cerrotalavan/Shutterstock

Structured pelvic floor muscle exercises (generally working with a therapist over time) are effective as an initial treatment when prolapse has occurred. Pelvic floor training during late pregnancy can also be used to treat and prevent further prolapse or urinary incontinence.

Read more:
Men have pelvic floors too – and can benefit when they exercise them regularly

Interestingly, general body strength and fitness does not translate into strong pelvic floor muscles – only specific exercises do this. But keeping your weight under control and managing other health conditions can help reduce symptoms.

Intravaginal support devices, called pessaries, can also substantially reduce symptoms. These are usually silicone rings or discs to help support the vaginal walls. They can be fitted by doctors, nurses or physiotherapists and can often be managed by women themselves.

Pessaries are often made of silicone.
Pepermpron/Shutterstock

Prolapse can also cause mental health distress. Some women may find their body image suffers, and they may experience anxiety or depression which needs specific management.

What does surgery involve?

In severe cases, a clinician might recommend surgery if conservative management (such as pelvic floor muscle training) has been ineffective.

Surgery can also be necessary in those uncommon cases where the prolapse is affecting kidney or bowel function. In these situations surgery can restore quality of life.

Surgery for prolapse can be performed through the abdomen (usually keyhole approach) or vaginally. For most women, mesh is not required and the surgery involves reshaping and reattaching the stretched tissues to strong ligaments.

Unfortunately this is not always successful, particularly when the tissues are very weak. Approximately 25% of women will need further surgery.

In 2017, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration withdrew their approval for vaginal mesh products for prolapse, after safety concerns. There has since been a marked reduction in surgery for prolapse and urinary incontinence.

However we have not seen a corresponding increase in non-surgical treatments, so we can only assume many women are simply not seeking treatment at all.

We do need to continue working towards better and safer products to improve the durability of our pelvic floor repairs. But in the meantime we must also continue to provide individualised care for every affected woman.

For many, maintaining pelvic floor strength and a healthy lifestyle will be enough to return to and enjoy their normal activities. The first step is to talk to your GP, who can explain what options will work best for you. Läs mer…