Monday, July 1, 2013
NSA LEADER WARNS OF CYBER ATTACKS AT CYBER SYMPOSIUM
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Nation Must Defend Cyber Infrastructure, Alexander Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - The United States must have a transparent debate on how it will protect itself in cyberspace, the director of the National Security Agency said yesterday.
"It is a debate that is going to have all the key elements of the executive branch -- that's DHS, FBI, DOD, Cyber Command, NSA, and other partners -- with our allies and with industry," Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander told an audience at the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association International Cyber Symposium in Baltimore.
Everyone involved must figure out how to work together as the cyber threat grows, said Alexander, who also commands U.S. Cyber Command.
In August, the Saudi Aramco oil company was hit with a destructive attack that destroyed the data on more than 30,000 systems, he said. In September, distributed denial of service attacks began on the U.S. financial sector, and a few hundred disruptive attacks have occurred since.
In March, destructive cyberattacks took place against South Korea, the general said.
"If you look at the statistics and what's going on, we're seeing an increase in the disruptive and destructive attacks. And I am concerned that those will continue," he said. "As a nation, we must be ready."
Over the past few years, there has been a convergence of analog and digital data streams, Alexander said. Now, everything is on one network -- information sent by terrorists, soldiers and school teachers travels through the same digital pipelines.
The cyber world is experiencing an exponential rate of change, he said. "It's wonderful," he added. "These capabilities, I think, are going to help us solve cancer. This is a wonderful opportunity."
But, he said, cyberspace also has vulnerabilities. "We're being attacked," Alexander said. "And we've got to figure out how to fix that."
The key to the nation's future in cyber is a defensible architecture, he said, embodied for the Defense Department by the Joint Information Environment. In that environment, mobile devices will securely connect with fixed infrastructure across the services in a way that allows the department to audit and take care of its data much better than it could do in the legacy systems, Alexander said.
The need to create one joint integrated cyber force is "a great reason for having NSA and Cyber Command collocated," Alexander said. Both are based on Fort Meade, Md.
"We can leverage the exceptional talent that the people at NSA have to help build that force," he added, "and that's superb."
Nation Must Defend Cyber Infrastructure, Alexander Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - The United States must have a transparent debate on how it will protect itself in cyberspace, the director of the National Security Agency said yesterday.
"It is a debate that is going to have all the key elements of the executive branch -- that's DHS, FBI, DOD, Cyber Command, NSA, and other partners -- with our allies and with industry," Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander told an audience at the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association International Cyber Symposium in Baltimore.
Everyone involved must figure out how to work together as the cyber threat grows, said Alexander, who also commands U.S. Cyber Command.
In August, the Saudi Aramco oil company was hit with a destructive attack that destroyed the data on more than 30,000 systems, he said. In September, distributed denial of service attacks began on the U.S. financial sector, and a few hundred disruptive attacks have occurred since.
In March, destructive cyberattacks took place against South Korea, the general said.
"If you look at the statistics and what's going on, we're seeing an increase in the disruptive and destructive attacks. And I am concerned that those will continue," he said. "As a nation, we must be ready."
Over the past few years, there has been a convergence of analog and digital data streams, Alexander said. Now, everything is on one network -- information sent by terrorists, soldiers and school teachers travels through the same digital pipelines.
The cyber world is experiencing an exponential rate of change, he said. "It's wonderful," he added. "These capabilities, I think, are going to help us solve cancer. This is a wonderful opportunity."
But, he said, cyberspace also has vulnerabilities. "We're being attacked," Alexander said. "And we've got to figure out how to fix that."
The key to the nation's future in cyber is a defensible architecture, he said, embodied for the Defense Department by the Joint Information Environment. In that environment, mobile devices will securely connect with fixed infrastructure across the services in a way that allows the department to audit and take care of its data much better than it could do in the legacy systems, Alexander said.
The need to create one joint integrated cyber force is "a great reason for having NSA and Cyber Command collocated," Alexander said. Both are based on Fort Meade, Md.
"We can leverage the exceptional talent that the people at NSA have to help build that force," he added, "and that's superb."
RECENT U.S. NAVY PHOTOS
Seaman Sophia Lam measures the bearing of navigational land marks during a strait transit aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3). Kearsarge is the flagship for the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, is deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Corbin J. Shea (Released) 130622-N-SB587-014
A Marine from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26th MEU) dives near the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) during a swim call after the conclusion of Exercise Eager Lion 2013. Eager Lion 2013 is an annual, multinational exercise designed to strengthen military-to-military relationships and enhance security and stability in the region. Kearsarge is the flagship for the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 26th MEU, is deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Corbin J. Shea (Released) 130622-N-SB587-630
JAMES DOBBINS HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE ON AFGHANISTAN IN NEW DELHI
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Press Conference in New Delhi
Press Conference
Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
New Delhi, India
June 27, 2013
Ambassador Dobbins: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here in New Delhi. I’ve been in the job I currently hold for a month now. I’ve been touring the region for the last week. I went to Doha with Secretary Kerry for discussions there, and then met with President Karzai in Kabul on Monday and with Prime Minister Nawaz and other Pakistani officials on Tuesday. I arrived here yesterday and met with the Foreign Secretary and others from the Foreign Ministry yesterday evening. I’ll meet with the Indian Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador [Lamba] who is an old friend from a decade ago after this meeting.
I think the last time I was in New Delhi was in a similar capacity. I was the American Special Envoy for Afghanistan also in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and represented the U.S. in the early diplomacy after 9/11 which led to the Bonn Conference and the establishment of an interim government in Afghanistan which ultimately led to the current constitution and current government in Afghanistan.
So I’ve come back at an interesting and pivotal time, a time when NATO and the United States are transitioning from a combat to an advisory and assistance role in Afghanistan, and maybe more importantly a time when Afghanistan will be going through its first peaceful democratic transition in its national history.
I’ve come to Delhi and hope to be able to come back regularly because India has an important stake in Afghanistan and it has important influence in Afghanistan, and it’s important that we understand Indian views and obviously that India understands our views and that we collaborate as closely as possible which I certainly did 10 years ago or 11 years ago when the Indian representative and I, Ambassador [Lamba] collaborated very closely, very effectively, in bringing about the emergence of an interim government in Afghanistan, and I anticipate that we’ll be able to continue to collaborate on a similar basis. So I’ll be glad to answer questions.
Press: What talks with the Indian [inaudible] the Special Envoy. What [were] talks?
Ambassador Dobbins: The talks pretty much covered all aspects of our relations with Afghanistan and also to some degree with Pakistan where I had just been, but the focus was on Afghanistan.
The issue that’s probably most topical because it’s been in the news lately is the efforts to begin a peace process and I would say that was probably the single, the topic that occupied the most time. But we also talked about other issues including the upcoming Afghan elections and the political transition. And I think while a lot of us concentrate on our attention on both the possible peace process on the one hand and the military situation and the reduction in NATO and American forces, those are not the most important things that are going on. The most important things that are going on, the thing that will shape Afghanistan’s future more than anything else is the political transition that will take place next year.
Press: What topics?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think we talked about the election process, about the international [inaudible], that it’s a free and fair process, and how we can encourage the Afghan political elites to coalesce around candidates who have broad non-sectarian or cross-sectarian appeal. Candidates who don’t just represent one sectarian community but bring together coalitions that will result in an administration that has support and appeal in Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek communities.
On the reconciliation there were a lot of questions about where we stand in terms of the possibilities of opening a Taliban office in Doha for the purpose of negotiating and I explained where that process stood.
Press: Could you summarize what the Indian view was to your [Doha] peace process and how you responded to what has widely been considered [inaudible] of great [inaudible]?
Ambassador Dobbins: They questioned me closely about what the prospects were, what the exact status was, and I hope that they were somewhat reassured as a result. They weren’t telling me they were opposed, they weren’t telling me that this was something we should stay away from, but they clearly had anxieties, anxieties that we all have. Nobody knows how this is going to progress and it’s certainly not a sure thing that it will result in a diminished violence and a successful evolution toward peace. But I didn’t get a sense that they thought it wasn’t worth trying.
I don’t really want to speak for the Indian side, however. I think they’re perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. For our standpoint we’re going into this process with open eyes and without naïve or excessive expectations of rapid progress or even a certainty that there will be any progress at all. Indeed, there’s no certainty that the process will even start since we’re still waiting for responses from the Taliban as to whether they’re prepared to operate under the conditions that the government of Qatar has set, whether they’re prepared to meet with us, and whether they’re prepared to meet with representatives of the Afghan High Peace Council. We haven’t yet received definitive responses on those questions.
Press: After the change of government in Islamabad, what is your assessment for improvement of India-Pakistan ties, and how important do you see that in terms of [Afghanistan’s situation] post 2014?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think that any improvement in India-Pakistan ties will almost automatically improve Afghanistan’s situation. I’ve met twice now in little more than two weeks with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The first time shortly before he became Prime Minister and then again the day before yesterday. My sense is that an improvement in relations with India is fairly high on his list of priorities. He’s got an overwhelming set of problems facing him, most immediately economic pressures, also significant domestic violence that he need to cope with.
But on the external front, and I think he understands that internal and external affairs are related, my sense is that improving relations with India seems to be his top priority.
Press: [What is the] concern [in] India? [Inaudible] talks with Taliban? Without [inaudible] of terrorists, do you believe that an improvement in Indo relations with Pakistan [or] Taliban [will pass]?
Ambassador Dobbins: We certainly agree that there’s no prospect for improvement in relations with the Taliban or any agreement with the Taliban unless the issue of terrorism is directly addressed. We set as a precondition for beginning talks with the Taliban that they make a statement that at least began to distance themselves from international terrorism and they did so. They made a statement a week ago Tuesday in which they said they opposed the use of Afghan territory for attacks on anybody else. But that’s I think from our standpoint sufficient to begin talking to them, but it’s not going to be sufficient as the basis for any agreement.
We’ve made clear, Secretary Kerry made clear when he was here that any agreement would need to include a cessation of hostilities, a respect for the Afghan constitution, and a severing of all ties with al-Qaida and similar terrorist organizations.
I would stress that the negotiations toward this objective will principally be negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Not between the United States and the Taliban. But we hope that our dialogue with them, if it begins, can contribute to that and we’ll be focused particularly on the topic that you raised which is severing their ties with al-Qaida. It will be one of the first issues we will raise is how do they intend to do that. Not just what they intend to say about it but how they actually intend to go about severing those ties.
Press: What exactly is the U.S. doing to get President Karzai on board with the peace process with the Taliban? [Inaudible] and I understand that President Karzai isn’t very happy about that. I was wondering [inaudible].
Ambassador Dobbins: Well, President Karzai wasn’t happy about it, quite aside from that we weren’t happy about it either. There’s I think an impression that we intervened with the Qataris only because President Karzai complained. We intervened with the Qataris well before President Karzai complained because the self-presentation of that office was inconsistent with the assurance that the Qataris had given us and that we had given President Karzai.
The government of Qatar responded very quickly. They took down the sign that said Islamic Emirates. They took down the flag. And they issued a public statement that this was not the Office of the Islamic Emirate, this was the political office of the Taliban.
So in terms of the specific things that Karzai was concerned about, I think those issues have been resolved. When I talked to President Karzai on Monday, he was perfectly content to move forward with this if the Taliban are prepared to do so on the basis that we had previously agreed
Press: Are you going back to Qatar?
Ambassador Dobbins: No. We’re still waiting to hear from the Taliban whether they’re willing to meet. I think they’re still debating among themselves as the result of the events of last Tuesday whether they want to go forward or not. I don’t know.
From here I’m going back to Washington via Europe.
Press: On the Taliban. You mentioned a statement by them a week ago saying the use of Afghan territory [inaudible]. And yet we saw a couple of days ago an attack on central Kabul targeting the Presidential Palace. How do you manage the process if you see in the coming months the attacks continuing in Afghanistan? What would your [inaudible] to do with that?
Ambassador Dobbins: You don’t hold peace talks after the war, you hold peace talks during wars. The Taliban haven’t asked us to stop fighting and we don’t expect them to stop fighting just because they’re talking. The objective of the talks obviously is a diminution of violence and ultimately an enduring peace, but we’re not naïve enough to think that’s going to come quickly and it’s certainly not a precondition for just talking.
Frankly, I anticipate that the Taliban will continue to try to negotiate from a position of strength. They’ll continue to mount attacks as will we and as will the Afghan government. The attacks that the Taliban have mounted over the past several months have been fairly severe and they’ve almost all failed. The Afghan armed forces are now taking the lead in combat operations. We’re no longer leading in combat. They are increasingly reliant on their own resources. And they’re performing well.
But I don’t think that’s going to lead to an immediate diminution in violence. I think the Taliban probably want to continue to put pressure on. They want to continue to make it look like the United States is retreating as a result of that pressure rather than as a result of its success in building a viable Afghan capacity for self-defense. And NATO, the United States, and in particular the Afghan Security Forces are going to continue not just to defend themselves, but to mount offensive operations against the Taliban, and not only seek to hold territory but to reclaim territory.
So I don’t anticipate that the beginning of negotiations will end the war. I do hope that negotiations will ultimately contribute to an end to the war. But that’s by no means certain. It’s simply something that’s worth trying.
Press Conference in New Delhi
Press Conference
Ambassador James Dobbins, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
New Delhi, India
June 27, 2013
Ambassador Dobbins: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here in New Delhi. I’ve been in the job I currently hold for a month now. I’ve been touring the region for the last week. I went to Doha with Secretary Kerry for discussions there, and then met with President Karzai in Kabul on Monday and with Prime Minister Nawaz and other Pakistani officials on Tuesday. I arrived here yesterday and met with the Foreign Secretary and others from the Foreign Ministry yesterday evening. I’ll meet with the Indian Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Ambassador [Lamba] who is an old friend from a decade ago after this meeting.
I think the last time I was in New Delhi was in a similar capacity. I was the American Special Envoy for Afghanistan also in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and represented the U.S. in the early diplomacy after 9/11 which led to the Bonn Conference and the establishment of an interim government in Afghanistan which ultimately led to the current constitution and current government in Afghanistan.
So I’ve come back at an interesting and pivotal time, a time when NATO and the United States are transitioning from a combat to an advisory and assistance role in Afghanistan, and maybe more importantly a time when Afghanistan will be going through its first peaceful democratic transition in its national history.
I’ve come to Delhi and hope to be able to come back regularly because India has an important stake in Afghanistan and it has important influence in Afghanistan, and it’s important that we understand Indian views and obviously that India understands our views and that we collaborate as closely as possible which I certainly did 10 years ago or 11 years ago when the Indian representative and I, Ambassador [Lamba] collaborated very closely, very effectively, in bringing about the emergence of an interim government in Afghanistan, and I anticipate that we’ll be able to continue to collaborate on a similar basis. So I’ll be glad to answer questions.
Press: What talks with the Indian [inaudible] the Special Envoy. What [were] talks?
Ambassador Dobbins: The talks pretty much covered all aspects of our relations with Afghanistan and also to some degree with Pakistan where I had just been, but the focus was on Afghanistan.
The issue that’s probably most topical because it’s been in the news lately is the efforts to begin a peace process and I would say that was probably the single, the topic that occupied the most time. But we also talked about other issues including the upcoming Afghan elections and the political transition. And I think while a lot of us concentrate on our attention on both the possible peace process on the one hand and the military situation and the reduction in NATO and American forces, those are not the most important things that are going on. The most important things that are going on, the thing that will shape Afghanistan’s future more than anything else is the political transition that will take place next year.
Press: What topics?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think we talked about the election process, about the international [inaudible], that it’s a free and fair process, and how we can encourage the Afghan political elites to coalesce around candidates who have broad non-sectarian or cross-sectarian appeal. Candidates who don’t just represent one sectarian community but bring together coalitions that will result in an administration that has support and appeal in Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek communities.
On the reconciliation there were a lot of questions about where we stand in terms of the possibilities of opening a Taliban office in Doha for the purpose of negotiating and I explained where that process stood.
Press: Could you summarize what the Indian view was to your [Doha] peace process and how you responded to what has widely been considered [inaudible] of great [inaudible]?
Ambassador Dobbins: They questioned me closely about what the prospects were, what the exact status was, and I hope that they were somewhat reassured as a result. They weren’t telling me they were opposed, they weren’t telling me that this was something we should stay away from, but they clearly had anxieties, anxieties that we all have. Nobody knows how this is going to progress and it’s certainly not a sure thing that it will result in a diminished violence and a successful evolution toward peace. But I didn’t get a sense that they thought it wasn’t worth trying.
I don’t really want to speak for the Indian side, however. I think they’re perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. For our standpoint we’re going into this process with open eyes and without naïve or excessive expectations of rapid progress or even a certainty that there will be any progress at all. Indeed, there’s no certainty that the process will even start since we’re still waiting for responses from the Taliban as to whether they’re prepared to operate under the conditions that the government of Qatar has set, whether they’re prepared to meet with us, and whether they’re prepared to meet with representatives of the Afghan High Peace Council. We haven’t yet received definitive responses on those questions.
Press: After the change of government in Islamabad, what is your assessment for improvement of India-Pakistan ties, and how important do you see that in terms of [Afghanistan’s situation] post 2014?
Ambassador Dobbins: I think that any improvement in India-Pakistan ties will almost automatically improve Afghanistan’s situation. I’ve met twice now in little more than two weeks with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The first time shortly before he became Prime Minister and then again the day before yesterday. My sense is that an improvement in relations with India is fairly high on his list of priorities. He’s got an overwhelming set of problems facing him, most immediately economic pressures, also significant domestic violence that he need to cope with.
But on the external front, and I think he understands that internal and external affairs are related, my sense is that improving relations with India seems to be his top priority.
Press: [What is the] concern [in] India? [Inaudible] talks with Taliban? Without [inaudible] of terrorists, do you believe that an improvement in Indo relations with Pakistan [or] Taliban [will pass]?
Ambassador Dobbins: We certainly agree that there’s no prospect for improvement in relations with the Taliban or any agreement with the Taliban unless the issue of terrorism is directly addressed. We set as a precondition for beginning talks with the Taliban that they make a statement that at least began to distance themselves from international terrorism and they did so. They made a statement a week ago Tuesday in which they said they opposed the use of Afghan territory for attacks on anybody else. But that’s I think from our standpoint sufficient to begin talking to them, but it’s not going to be sufficient as the basis for any agreement.
We’ve made clear, Secretary Kerry made clear when he was here that any agreement would need to include a cessation of hostilities, a respect for the Afghan constitution, and a severing of all ties with al-Qaida and similar terrorist organizations.
I would stress that the negotiations toward this objective will principally be negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Not between the United States and the Taliban. But we hope that our dialogue with them, if it begins, can contribute to that and we’ll be focused particularly on the topic that you raised which is severing their ties with al-Qaida. It will be one of the first issues we will raise is how do they intend to do that. Not just what they intend to say about it but how they actually intend to go about severing those ties.
Press: What exactly is the U.S. doing to get President Karzai on board with the peace process with the Taliban? [Inaudible] and I understand that President Karzai isn’t very happy about that. I was wondering [inaudible].
Ambassador Dobbins: Well, President Karzai wasn’t happy about it, quite aside from that we weren’t happy about it either. There’s I think an impression that we intervened with the Qataris only because President Karzai complained. We intervened with the Qataris well before President Karzai complained because the self-presentation of that office was inconsistent with the assurance that the Qataris had given us and that we had given President Karzai.
The government of Qatar responded very quickly. They took down the sign that said Islamic Emirates. They took down the flag. And they issued a public statement that this was not the Office of the Islamic Emirate, this was the political office of the Taliban.
So in terms of the specific things that Karzai was concerned about, I think those issues have been resolved. When I talked to President Karzai on Monday, he was perfectly content to move forward with this if the Taliban are prepared to do so on the basis that we had previously agreed
Press: Are you going back to Qatar?
Ambassador Dobbins: No. We’re still waiting to hear from the Taliban whether they’re willing to meet. I think they’re still debating among themselves as the result of the events of last Tuesday whether they want to go forward or not. I don’t know.
From here I’m going back to Washington via Europe.
Press: On the Taliban. You mentioned a statement by them a week ago saying the use of Afghan territory [inaudible]. And yet we saw a couple of days ago an attack on central Kabul targeting the Presidential Palace. How do you manage the process if you see in the coming months the attacks continuing in Afghanistan? What would your [inaudible] to do with that?
Ambassador Dobbins: You don’t hold peace talks after the war, you hold peace talks during wars. The Taliban haven’t asked us to stop fighting and we don’t expect them to stop fighting just because they’re talking. The objective of the talks obviously is a diminution of violence and ultimately an enduring peace, but we’re not naïve enough to think that’s going to come quickly and it’s certainly not a precondition for just talking.
Frankly, I anticipate that the Taliban will continue to try to negotiate from a position of strength. They’ll continue to mount attacks as will we and as will the Afghan government. The attacks that the Taliban have mounted over the past several months have been fairly severe and they’ve almost all failed. The Afghan armed forces are now taking the lead in combat operations. We’re no longer leading in combat. They are increasingly reliant on their own resources. And they’re performing well.
But I don’t think that’s going to lead to an immediate diminution in violence. I think the Taliban probably want to continue to put pressure on. They want to continue to make it look like the United States is retreating as a result of that pressure rather than as a result of its success in building a viable Afghan capacity for self-defense. And NATO, the United States, and in particular the Afghan Security Forces are going to continue not just to defend themselves, but to mount offensive operations against the Taliban, and not only seek to hold territory but to reclaim territory.
So I don’t anticipate that the beginning of negotiations will end the war. I do hope that negotiations will ultimately contribute to an end to the war. But that’s by no means certain. It’s simply something that’s worth trying.
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM'S DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER VISITS PENTAGON
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Carter Hosts Brunei Darussalam's Deputy Defense Minister
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter met at the Pentagon with Brunei Darussalam's deputy defense minister, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
In a statement summarizing the meeting, Little said Carter complimented Dato Paduka Haji Mustappa bin Haji Sirat for Brunei's ongoing leadership during its chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
"The two leaders agreed that ASEAN continues to play a vital role in ensuring a spirit of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, which is essential to the promotion of shared security and prosperity," he said.
Carter congratulated Brunei on having recently concluded a historic multilateral exercise focusing on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and military medicine, which the two leaders agreed demonstrates ASEAN's importance as a platform for regional nations to address shared security challenges, enhance interoperability and build trust, the press secretary said.
Carter and Dato Mustappa also discussed ways in which the United States and Brunei are deepening their bilateral relations, he added, and they talked about plans for the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting-Plus ministerial conference in August, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will attend.
"Deputy Secretary Carter reiterated Secretary Hagel's offer to host all ASEAN defense ministers in the United States next year, and noted he looked forward to staying in close touch," Little said.
Carter Hosts Brunei Darussalam's Deputy Defense Minister
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 28, 2013 - Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter met at the Pentagon with Brunei Darussalam's deputy defense minister, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
In a statement summarizing the meeting, Little said Carter complimented Dato Paduka Haji Mustappa bin Haji Sirat for Brunei's ongoing leadership during its chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
"The two leaders agreed that ASEAN continues to play a vital role in ensuring a spirit of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, which is essential to the promotion of shared security and prosperity," he said.
Carter congratulated Brunei on having recently concluded a historic multilateral exercise focusing on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and military medicine, which the two leaders agreed demonstrates ASEAN's importance as a platform for regional nations to address shared security challenges, enhance interoperability and build trust, the press secretary said.
Carter and Dato Mustappa also discussed ways in which the United States and Brunei are deepening their bilateral relations, he added, and they talked about plans for the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting-Plus ministerial conference in August, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will attend.
"Deputy Secretary Carter reiterated Secretary Hagel's offer to host all ASEAN defense ministers in the United States next year, and noted he looked forward to staying in close touch," Little said.
SEC COMMISSIONER WALTER'S SPEECH ON CORPORATE DISCLOSURE
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Corporate Disclosure: The Stage, the Audience and the Players
by
Commissioner Elisse B. Walter
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Stanford Directors College
Palo Alto, CA
June 25, 2013
Thank you, [Joe], for your kind introduction. Joe and I have much in common — the same alma mater and a working relationship at the SEC more years ago than either of us would like to admit. That adds to my pleasure at being here today at the 19th annual Stanford directors college.
As many of you know, I am nearing the end of my tenure as a Commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. As a Commissioner, as Chair and as an SEC staffer, jobs spanning over two decades, I have delved into every aspect of the agency’s mission. And, looking back, it was my years in the Division of Corporation Finance that may have taught me the most important lesson: the cornerstone of securities regulation and investor protection is the timely disclosure to investors of accurate and complete information.
And by disclosure, I mean more than the numbers in the financial statements. I mean the information investors need to put those numbers into context — not just the "what?" and "how much?" but the "why?" And so today, in what may be one of the last speeches of my public career, I’d like to return to a subject that is an old favorite of mine: Management’s Discussion and Analysis, or MD&A. And I want to do that because I believe that you, as directors, need to take an active role in the company’s disclosure, and particularly the MD&A, and are in a special position to do so.
But before I get started, I do need to remind you that the views I express today are my own, and not those of the Commission, my fellow Commissioners or the Commission’s staff.
Comprehensive corporate disclosure is critical to maintaining and improving investor confidence in the markets. And investor confidence in the quality of financial disclosures is what makes our markets work.
As directors of public companies, you serve a critical function as stewards of the robust, transparent communication with your company’s shareholders that builds this confidence. This is not only a responsibility, but also an opportunity. As I’ve said many times, you should not view disclosure as an obligation; instead, view it as a chance to tell your story.
"Mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortunes." William Shakespeare wrote that sometime between 1603 and 1606 in his famous work, King Lear. Unfortunately, that approach to disclosure about affections didn’t work out so well for King Lear or his daughter Cordelia. And I certainly don’t mean for you to take King Lear’s approach in order for your considerations about corporate disclosure to be respected. Rather, my strongest desire is that companies and their shareholder-owners truly engage in an honest dialogue.
So, inspired by the Bard, I’d like to give you three things to think about when considering MD&A. First, set the stage. Second, know your audience. And finally, know your players.
"All the world’s a stage…." Shakespeare wrote that too. And I’m not even going to mention the one about lawyers.
When we talk about disclosure, SEC regulations merely set the stage. But they aren’t designed to tell the whole story. That’s where you and the managers you oversee come in — enter stage right.
Regulations are the floor but not the ceiling. They tell companies what, at a minimum, should be covered, but it’s up to the company to make sure the story gets told. That’s where MD&A becomes a real opportunity for the company to tell shareholders what’s really going on. And if the company’s management isn’t doing that, or isn’t doing it well, it’s up to the directors to ask questions, suggest changes, and require more information.
You should take this role very seriously. You are the investor’s voice and advocate, and they deserve a good story. Now, a good story may not always be a happy story. Shakespeare was a master of both tragedy and comedy. But the real story — and by that I mean the whole story — is the one that needs to be told.
I’m going to read you a comment that was actually issued by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance to an issuer regarding its MD&A. Bear with me, it’s a little long:
We believe your current disclosures are too general in nature and do not provide your investor with a complete picture of your enterprise by segment and as a whole. In this regard, for each period presented and for each of your reportable segments, revise to:
Clearly disclose and quantify each material factor that contributed to the change in revenue and operating income, indicating the impact by geographic area;
Provide insight into the underlying business drivers or conditions that contributed to these changes;
***
Describe any other known trends or uncertainties that have had or you expect may reasonably have a material impact on your operations and if you believe that these trends are indicative of future performance.
This is not a comment a company (or a board) should be happy to see. This comment outlines very basic things that should have been covered by this MD&A, but weren’t — it reflects a play that no one would want to see because the stage has not been properly set.
No MD&A should be merely a recitation of the financial statements. Give investors the when, the where, the why and, perhaps most importantly, the what’s next.
Here’s another comment:
We note that you identify and quantify various factors that impacted the year to year trends of your results of operations and the related financial statement line items … but did not discuss the business developments or external events that underlie these factors. Please expand your MD&A to explain in greater detail what gave rise to the factors that you have identified, and indicate whether or not you expect them to have a continuing impact on your results of operations in the future.
This is another comment no one should be happy to receive. I’m told that sometimes companies will leave out disclosure and wait to see if the SEC staff will issue a comment. If that’s true, and I worry that it is, I must say that that is entirely the wrong approach. The staff is very good at asking the right questions to require better disclosure, but they are not insiders. They do not know your company the way that you do. Frankly, they should not be doing your job for you, nor should we expect them to.
Sometimes finding the right details to give investors is hard. Predicting the impact, either positive or negative, of a future event is even more challenging. It requires significant judgment and thoughtful consideration. But it’s a task that should be undertaken by the very insiders who have the information to make that call, so that investors have the complete story. The focus should always be on the investors.
And that brings me to my second point: know your audience.
Well, that’s easy enough. Your audience is your investors. And in my view, you should address your investors like they are your business partners, and the MD&A should reflect that perspective. You wouldn’t address a business partner with boilerplate. Your investors deserve the same respect.
They also deserve the whole story. As some of you know, I frequently use the example of my fictional Aunt Millie, the archetype of the retail investor. Well, Aunt Millie has been reading, or trying to read, corporate disclosure for years, and I’m not sure she has ever seen an MD&A that reads quite like one of her Agatha Christie novels — where Detective Hercule Poirot solves each and every mystery step by step. To be honest, I fear that my dear Aunt Millie might just leave this Earth without having ever seen the kind of truly informative and complete MD&A that I have dreamed of for years.
Please don’t let this happen to my dear Aunt Millie! Perhaps you’d even be willing to go back and read one of the more well-known Supreme Court cases about disclosure, TSC Industries. That case gives us the famous concept of evaluating disclosure by looking at the "total mix" of information, but it also says that doubts about whether disclosure is required should "be resolved in favor of those the statute is designed to protect."
I listed in a speech from 2010 (I told you I’d been talking about this for a while) some questions that investors probably still want to know the answers to after reading an MD&A. I think they are still quite relevant today:
What is the company’s business today?
How did it perform?
Where is the cash?
What are the company’s key business drivers?
What are the risks and uncertainties?
How flexibly can the company respond to change?
What do the company’s future prospects look like?
And of course there may be other questions to answer that are specific to your company. But the MD&A is the place to answer them clearly, thoroughly, and directly.
When I served as the Chairman of the Commission, there was a sign on my office door that read simply "How does it help investors?" It was a reminder that everything the Commission does should be focused on that goal.
Sometimes I think that every board meeting should prominently display a similar sign, one reading "What do investors want to know?" Let it serve as a reminder to everyone in the room that disclosure isn’t driven by what the company wants to disclose but by what the investors want to know. That should be front and center as you review the MD&A.
How the company gets to those answers brings me to my third point today: know your players.
In addition to examining the content of the MD&A, I believe the board should know the people and the processes involved in putting it together. First, what is the attitude of management towards disclosure? If they believe that robust, transparent disclosure is a good thing, then that tone will affect both the employees involved in providing information that is relevant to disclosure and to those designing controls and procedures to ensure that information is evaluated by management in a timely, thoughtful manner.
And I believe directors can influence that tone by being engaged, by reading the disclosure with a critical eye and by holding management’s feet to the fire when they believe there is more to the story that ought to be told. Ask yourself, what do I know about the company’s performance that cannot be reasonably inferred from the financial statements?
You are the investor’s voice and as the company’s stewards, you should also be their advocate as well. You play such a crucial role in ensuring that the company’s true story is told, and that’s the story that investors deserve to hear.
And disclosure has other positive effects. Full disclosure is a hallmark of good corporate governance — which should serve to help create the positive corporate culture that results in effective processes and procedures necessary to reveal the important information that your investors need to know. You can only be successful at good governance if you are also successful at disclosure.
Better disclosure equals better markets. It really can be that simple. I hope, as I conclude today, that you’ll always keep the investor — and of course, especially my dear Aunt Millie — at the forefront of your mind each and every time you embrace your important role in the disclosure process.
Thank you.
Corporate Disclosure: The Stage, the Audience and the Players
by
Commissioner Elisse B. Walter
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Stanford Directors College
Palo Alto, CA
June 25, 2013
Thank you, [Joe], for your kind introduction. Joe and I have much in common — the same alma mater and a working relationship at the SEC more years ago than either of us would like to admit. That adds to my pleasure at being here today at the 19th annual Stanford directors college.
As many of you know, I am nearing the end of my tenure as a Commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. As a Commissioner, as Chair and as an SEC staffer, jobs spanning over two decades, I have delved into every aspect of the agency’s mission. And, looking back, it was my years in the Division of Corporation Finance that may have taught me the most important lesson: the cornerstone of securities regulation and investor protection is the timely disclosure to investors of accurate and complete information.
And by disclosure, I mean more than the numbers in the financial statements. I mean the information investors need to put those numbers into context — not just the "what?" and "how much?" but the "why?" And so today, in what may be one of the last speeches of my public career, I’d like to return to a subject that is an old favorite of mine: Management’s Discussion and Analysis, or MD&A. And I want to do that because I believe that you, as directors, need to take an active role in the company’s disclosure, and particularly the MD&A, and are in a special position to do so.
But before I get started, I do need to remind you that the views I express today are my own, and not those of the Commission, my fellow Commissioners or the Commission’s staff.
Comprehensive corporate disclosure is critical to maintaining and improving investor confidence in the markets. And investor confidence in the quality of financial disclosures is what makes our markets work.
As directors of public companies, you serve a critical function as stewards of the robust, transparent communication with your company’s shareholders that builds this confidence. This is not only a responsibility, but also an opportunity. As I’ve said many times, you should not view disclosure as an obligation; instead, view it as a chance to tell your story.
"Mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortunes." William Shakespeare wrote that sometime between 1603 and 1606 in his famous work, King Lear. Unfortunately, that approach to disclosure about affections didn’t work out so well for King Lear or his daughter Cordelia. And I certainly don’t mean for you to take King Lear’s approach in order for your considerations about corporate disclosure to be respected. Rather, my strongest desire is that companies and their shareholder-owners truly engage in an honest dialogue.
So, inspired by the Bard, I’d like to give you three things to think about when considering MD&A. First, set the stage. Second, know your audience. And finally, know your players.
"All the world’s a stage…." Shakespeare wrote that too. And I’m not even going to mention the one about lawyers.
When we talk about disclosure, SEC regulations merely set the stage. But they aren’t designed to tell the whole story. That’s where you and the managers you oversee come in — enter stage right.
Regulations are the floor but not the ceiling. They tell companies what, at a minimum, should be covered, but it’s up to the company to make sure the story gets told. That’s where MD&A becomes a real opportunity for the company to tell shareholders what’s really going on. And if the company’s management isn’t doing that, or isn’t doing it well, it’s up to the directors to ask questions, suggest changes, and require more information.
You should take this role very seriously. You are the investor’s voice and advocate, and they deserve a good story. Now, a good story may not always be a happy story. Shakespeare was a master of both tragedy and comedy. But the real story — and by that I mean the whole story — is the one that needs to be told.
I’m going to read you a comment that was actually issued by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance to an issuer regarding its MD&A. Bear with me, it’s a little long:
Provide insight into the underlying business drivers or conditions that contributed to these changes;
***
Describe any other known trends or uncertainties that have had or you expect may reasonably have a material impact on your operations and if you believe that these trends are indicative of future performance.
This is not a comment a company (or a board) should be happy to see. This comment outlines very basic things that should have been covered by this MD&A, but weren’t — it reflects a play that no one would want to see because the stage has not been properly set.
No MD&A should be merely a recitation of the financial statements. Give investors the when, the where, the why and, perhaps most importantly, the what’s next.
Here’s another comment:
This is another comment no one should be happy to receive. I’m told that sometimes companies will leave out disclosure and wait to see if the SEC staff will issue a comment. If that’s true, and I worry that it is, I must say that that is entirely the wrong approach. The staff is very good at asking the right questions to require better disclosure, but they are not insiders. They do not know your company the way that you do. Frankly, they should not be doing your job for you, nor should we expect them to.
Sometimes finding the right details to give investors is hard. Predicting the impact, either positive or negative, of a future event is even more challenging. It requires significant judgment and thoughtful consideration. But it’s a task that should be undertaken by the very insiders who have the information to make that call, so that investors have the complete story. The focus should always be on the investors.
And that brings me to my second point: know your audience.
Well, that’s easy enough. Your audience is your investors. And in my view, you should address your investors like they are your business partners, and the MD&A should reflect that perspective. You wouldn’t address a business partner with boilerplate. Your investors deserve the same respect.
They also deserve the whole story. As some of you know, I frequently use the example of my fictional Aunt Millie, the archetype of the retail investor. Well, Aunt Millie has been reading, or trying to read, corporate disclosure for years, and I’m not sure she has ever seen an MD&A that reads quite like one of her Agatha Christie novels — where Detective Hercule Poirot solves each and every mystery step by step. To be honest, I fear that my dear Aunt Millie might just leave this Earth without having ever seen the kind of truly informative and complete MD&A that I have dreamed of for years.
Please don’t let this happen to my dear Aunt Millie! Perhaps you’d even be willing to go back and read one of the more well-known Supreme Court cases about disclosure, TSC Industries. That case gives us the famous concept of evaluating disclosure by looking at the "total mix" of information, but it also says that doubts about whether disclosure is required should "be resolved in favor of those the statute is designed to protect."
I listed in a speech from 2010 (I told you I’d been talking about this for a while) some questions that investors probably still want to know the answers to after reading an MD&A. I think they are still quite relevant today:
How did it perform?
Where is the cash?
What are the company’s key business drivers?
What are the risks and uncertainties?
How flexibly can the company respond to change?
What do the company’s future prospects look like?
And of course there may be other questions to answer that are specific to your company. But the MD&A is the place to answer them clearly, thoroughly, and directly.
When I served as the Chairman of the Commission, there was a sign on my office door that read simply "How does it help investors?" It was a reminder that everything the Commission does should be focused on that goal.
Sometimes I think that every board meeting should prominently display a similar sign, one reading "What do investors want to know?" Let it serve as a reminder to everyone in the room that disclosure isn’t driven by what the company wants to disclose but by what the investors want to know. That should be front and center as you review the MD&A.
How the company gets to those answers brings me to my third point today: know your players.
In addition to examining the content of the MD&A, I believe the board should know the people and the processes involved in putting it together. First, what is the attitude of management towards disclosure? If they believe that robust, transparent disclosure is a good thing, then that tone will affect both the employees involved in providing information that is relevant to disclosure and to those designing controls and procedures to ensure that information is evaluated by management in a timely, thoughtful manner.
And I believe directors can influence that tone by being engaged, by reading the disclosure with a critical eye and by holding management’s feet to the fire when they believe there is more to the story that ought to be told. Ask yourself, what do I know about the company’s performance that cannot be reasonably inferred from the financial statements?
You are the investor’s voice and as the company’s stewards, you should also be their advocate as well. You play such a crucial role in ensuring that the company’s true story is told, and that’s the story that investors deserve to hear.
And disclosure has other positive effects. Full disclosure is a hallmark of good corporate governance — which should serve to help create the positive corporate culture that results in effective processes and procedures necessary to reveal the important information that your investors need to know. You can only be successful at good governance if you are also successful at disclosure.
Better disclosure equals better markets. It really can be that simple. I hope, as I conclude today, that you’ll always keep the investor — and of course, especially my dear Aunt Millie — at the forefront of your mind each and every time you embrace your important role in the disclosure process.
Thank you.
MAN AND COMPANY CHARGED WITH MAKING MISTATEMENTS OF FDA'S VIEW OF COMPANY
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed fraud charges on Tuesday against Burbank, Calif.-based Imaging3, Inc., and its founder and chief executive Dean Janes for misleading shareholders about the Federal and Drug Administration (FDA)’s view of the company’s medical device
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Janes held a conference call with investors in November 2010 after the FDA denied clearance for Imaging3, Inc. to market its proprietary scanner, which provides three-dimensional images for use in medical diagnosis. The denial was the product’s third, as the FDA denied clearance in 2008 and earlier in 2010. Even though the FDA cited concerns about the safety of the device and the quality of the images, Janes told investors that the FDA’s issues were "not substantive" and largely "administrative."
"Shareholders have a right to trust corporate officers to tell them the truth about the business. When CEOs abuse that trust and make misstatements, innocent shareholders are victimized," said Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. "The SEC will hold corporate officers accountable for misleading shareholders."
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on the conference call, Janes did not discuss the issues raised by the FDA in an October 2010 letter, such as the device’s potential for over-heating, and the fact that some sample images the company submitted were "scientifically invalid and useless."
Even when asked on the call whether any of the FDA’s concerns were "safety-related" or involved image quality, Janes said, "Nope," and that there was "really and honestly not one question about the technology or its consistency. It just doesn’t make sense to me."
After an investor obtained the FDA’s denial letter and posted it on an Internet blog in early 2011, Janes used his personal Facebook page in another effort to mischaracterize the denial, the SEC alleged. Janes and his company didn’t officially issue the full text of the denial letter until earlier this year, more than two years after the call to discuss it.
The SEC's action charges Imaging3, Inc. and Janes with fraud and seeks a court order to bar them from future violations of federal securities laws, require them to pay civil monetary penalties, and bar Janes from serving as a public company officer or director.
Alka Patel and Katharine Zoladz of the Los Angeles Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation and David Van Havermaat will lead the litigation.
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it filed fraud charges on Tuesday against Burbank, Calif.-based Imaging3, Inc., and its founder and chief executive Dean Janes for misleading shareholders about the Federal and Drug Administration (FDA)’s view of the company’s medical device
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Janes held a conference call with investors in November 2010 after the FDA denied clearance for Imaging3, Inc. to market its proprietary scanner, which provides three-dimensional images for use in medical diagnosis. The denial was the product’s third, as the FDA denied clearance in 2008 and earlier in 2010. Even though the FDA cited concerns about the safety of the device and the quality of the images, Janes told investors that the FDA’s issues were "not substantive" and largely "administrative."
"Shareholders have a right to trust corporate officers to tell them the truth about the business. When CEOs abuse that trust and make misstatements, innocent shareholders are victimized," said Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director of the SEC’s Los Angeles Regional Office. "The SEC will hold corporate officers accountable for misleading shareholders."
According to the SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on the conference call, Janes did not discuss the issues raised by the FDA in an October 2010 letter, such as the device’s potential for over-heating, and the fact that some sample images the company submitted were "scientifically invalid and useless."
Even when asked on the call whether any of the FDA’s concerns were "safety-related" or involved image quality, Janes said, "Nope," and that there was "really and honestly not one question about the technology or its consistency. It just doesn’t make sense to me."
After an investor obtained the FDA’s denial letter and posted it on an Internet blog in early 2011, Janes used his personal Facebook page in another effort to mischaracterize the denial, the SEC alleged. Janes and his company didn’t officially issue the full text of the denial letter until earlier this year, more than two years after the call to discuss it.
The SEC's action charges Imaging3, Inc. and Janes with fraud and seeks a court order to bar them from future violations of federal securities laws, require them to pay civil monetary penalties, and bar Janes from serving as a public company officer or director.
Alka Patel and Katharine Zoladz of the Los Angeles Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation and David Van Havermaat will lead the litigation.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
U.S. ARMY'S TBI, PTSD AWARENESS EFFORT
 |
| Army Brig. Gen. (Dr.) John M. Cho, Army Medical Command deputy chief of staff for operations, addresses the issues of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury during an awareness event on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., June 22, 2013. U.S. Army photo by David Vergun |
Army Initiates Collaborative Effort on TBI, PTSD
By David Vergun
Army News Service
WASHINGTON, June 24, 2013 - Over the last 12 years, many soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with wounds, some visible and some not, a leader in Army Medicine said here June 22.
"The invisible wounds -- post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury -- are just as damaging as the visible ones. They impact the families as well as the soldiers," said Brig. Gen. (Dr.) John M. Cho, deputy chief of staff for operations with Army Medical Command.
An Iraq War veteran himself, Cho spoke outside the U.S. Capitol as part of National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Day. This year's theme was "Visible Honor for Invisible Wounds."
Post-traumatic stress disorder, known as PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, or TBI, are not just military-specific issues, Cho said. "They deserve a national discussion."
A big part of that discussion, he said, needs to focus on reducing the stigma associated with mental health issues.
Besides a national discussion, Cho said, agencies both inside and outside the military need to come together to learn more about identifying and treating PTSD and TBI, as well as preventing it in the first place.
Cho said a PTSD diagnosis is particularly challenging, as "you can't simply get a lab test or take an X-ray to find it."
As part of its collaborative effort, the Army is participating in a $60 million research study for TBI, sponsored by the National Football League, General Electric and athletic apparel manufacturer Under Armour, he said.
Also, $700 million has been allocated toward both PTSD and TBI as the result of a White House executive order for a renewed effort in collaboration with the Veterans Affairs Department and other organizations.
Additionally, the Army has set up seven "restorative centers" in Afghanistan, where TBI can be identified and treated, often allowing soldiers to stay in theater as they improve, he said.
The general explained that PTSD often, but not always, occurs with TBI, and that relationship, too, is being researched. "We're nowhere near where we want to be, however, when it comes to researching PTSD and TBI," he acknowledged. "A lot more needs to be done."
Cho said PTSD affected him personally when his brother, who also is a U.S. Military Academy graduate, returned from Afghanistan suffering from PTSD. He sought treatment and is better now, he said, adding that his brother is telling his story to other soldiers in an effort to get them to seek care.
"We know treatment helps," Cho said. "We can help them get better, and they can continue to serve in our Army with honor and distinction."
As a result of his brother's experience, Cho said, he's a big believer in group therapy, particularly cognitive processing psychotherapy.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, unable to attend the day's event, wrote in a letter for the attendees: "PTSD is a combat injury. Veterans suffering from PTSD deserve the same dignity and respect as our fellow wounded warriors.
"With the continued support and encouragement of organizations like Honor for ALL, the Army and this nation have made enormous strides in treating this injury, removing the stigma and instilling dignity in our recovering veterans," Odierno's letter continued. "But more work must be done!"
Honor for ALL, a nonprofit organization sponsoring the event, is dedicated to eliminating the stigma of PTSD and supports research into finding the causes and treatment of the disorder.
MAKING X-RAY IMAGING MORE PORTABLE
FROM: LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Los Alamos/Tribogenics Create Highly Portable Imaging System
Application to be featured at IAEA conference on nuclear security in Vienna
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., and MARINA DEL REY, Calif., June 26, 2013 - Los Alamos National Laboratory and Tribogenics, the pioneer of innovative X-ray solutions, have partnered to create a unique, lightweight, compact, low-cost X-ray system that uses the MiniMAX (Miniature, Mobile, Agile, X-ray) camera to provide real-time inspection of sealed containers and facilities. The innovative technology will be featured at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Conference on Nuclear Security: Enhancing Global Efforts, July 1-5, in Vienna, Austria.
"Cost and portability are the major barriers to expanding the use of X-ray imaging," said Scott Watson of Los Alamos's Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation Division. "We designed MiniMAX to demonstrate that such a system will open up new applications in security inspection, field medicine, specimen radiography and industrial inspection."
Los Alamos has developed MiniMAX as an alternative to the large, expensive and fixed facilities presently required for security inspections using X-ray imaging. The complete MiniMAX portable radiography system weighs less than five pounds, compared to much larger and heavier systems currently available.
Los Alamos Physicists demonstrated MiniMAX using a conventional X-ray source, a radioisotopic source, and a prototype source from Tribogenics operating at 90 keV. The Los Alamos team used the Tribogenics source to produce an X-ray image of a hand-held calculator.
"We were delighted when Los Alamos approached us to explore a partnership," said Carlos Camara, Chief Scientist at Tribogenics. "This is exactly the type of breakthrough, portable application we envision for our disruptive X-ray technology."
About Tribogenics
Tribogenics is a transformative X-ray technology company developing affordable and highly portable solutions for materials analysis and imaging. The Tribogenics range of X-ray sources includes the X-Change™ cartridge, the world’s smallest turnkey X-ray source designed for use in revolutionary new XRF systems. Tribogenics technology is based on a DARPA-funded initiative that originated at UCLA and the company is venture-backed by prominent investors, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund.
Photo Caption: A hand-held calculator that was X-rayed by Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers using the MiniMAX camera, a lightweight, portable X-ray machine that could revolution imaging of closed containers. (photo credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Los Alamos/Tribogenics Create Highly Portable Imaging System
Application to be featured at IAEA conference on nuclear security in Vienna
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., and MARINA DEL REY, Calif., June 26, 2013 - Los Alamos National Laboratory and Tribogenics, the pioneer of innovative X-ray solutions, have partnered to create a unique, lightweight, compact, low-cost X-ray system that uses the MiniMAX (Miniature, Mobile, Agile, X-ray) camera to provide real-time inspection of sealed containers and facilities. The innovative technology will be featured at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Conference on Nuclear Security: Enhancing Global Efforts, July 1-5, in Vienna, Austria.
"Cost and portability are the major barriers to expanding the use of X-ray imaging," said Scott Watson of Los Alamos's Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation Division. "We designed MiniMAX to demonstrate that such a system will open up new applications in security inspection, field medicine, specimen radiography and industrial inspection."
Los Alamos has developed MiniMAX as an alternative to the large, expensive and fixed facilities presently required for security inspections using X-ray imaging. The complete MiniMAX portable radiography system weighs less than five pounds, compared to much larger and heavier systems currently available.
Los Alamos Physicists demonstrated MiniMAX using a conventional X-ray source, a radioisotopic source, and a prototype source from Tribogenics operating at 90 keV. The Los Alamos team used the Tribogenics source to produce an X-ray image of a hand-held calculator.
"We were delighted when Los Alamos approached us to explore a partnership," said Carlos Camara, Chief Scientist at Tribogenics. "This is exactly the type of breakthrough, portable application we envision for our disruptive X-ray technology."
About Tribogenics
Tribogenics is a transformative X-ray technology company developing affordable and highly portable solutions for materials analysis and imaging. The Tribogenics range of X-ray sources includes the X-Change™ cartridge, the world’s smallest turnkey X-ray source designed for use in revolutionary new XRF systems. Tribogenics technology is based on a DARPA-funded initiative that originated at UCLA and the company is venture-backed by prominent investors, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund.
Photo Caption: A hand-held calculator that was X-rayed by Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers using the MiniMAX camera, a lightweight, portable X-ray machine that could revolution imaging of closed containers. (photo credit: Los Alamos National Laboratory)
Saturday, June 29, 2013
$3 MILLION GOING TO HELP RESTORE ST. LOUIS RIVER
FROM: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA and MPCA to Provide More than $3 Million to Restore the St. Louis River
Duluth (June 21, 2013) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced more than $3 million to help restore the St. Louis River Area of Concern. EPA will provide $2.2 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funds and MPCA will provide an additional $1.1 million through the Minnesota Clean Water Fund.
The money will be used to fund a variety of activities to guide clean-up work within the St. Louis River Area of Concern, one of 38 such areas within the Great Lakes region. The $3 million will be used to assess cleanup options at three sites; develop engineering plans for the restoration of seven sites; evaluate the potential use of dredged river sediment for use in local habitat restoration projects and conduct ecosystem monitoring activities.
"I am pleased to announce that EPA is providing an additional $2.2 million to help restore the headwaters of the Great Lakes," said EPA Regional Administrator and Great Lakes National Program Manager Susan Hedman. "EPA and MPCA are jointly funding the next phase of work needed to reverse over one hundred years of environmental degradation in the St. Louis River Area of Concern."
"The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is delighted to be working with our federal partners, including EPA, to secure funding to address legacy pollutants, a result of historic practices in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. With the help of our local partners, we are putting finishing touches on a detailed, multi-million dollar clean up and restoration plan to delist this Area of Concern by the year 2025," said John Linc Stine, Commissioner for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
"The St. Louis River is a recreational Minnesota jewel for local people, as well as for tourists and sports enthusiasts from all around our nation and world. It's a resource central to our enjoyment and our economy," said Rep. Rick Nolan. "We commend EPA and MPCA for their commitment, involvement and contribution to a clean and healthy St. Louis River."
"The City of Duluth is grateful for the partnership and shared commitment to the health and preservation of our natural surroundings," said Mayor Don Ness. "This funding will allow tremendous progress in the restoration of a huge community resource that is a critical part of Duluth’s vision. Working together to care for our natural assets allows Duluth to remain one of the most beautiful places in the nation and one of the most sought-after outdoor adventure hubs in the world."
"The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is pleased with the announcement of the investment being made on the St. Louis River Area of Concern. The Band's water regulatory authority and ceded territory rights obligate the Band to exercise stewardship with regard to the health of the river. We look forward to working in partnership with the EPA and MPCA on developing a plan for a cleaner river," said Ferdinand Martineau, Secretary-Treasurer, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The St. Louis River is the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior. The St. Louis River Area of Concern is extensive, consisting of portions of the St. Louis River watershed in Minnesota, the Nemadji River watershed in Wisconsin and the western tip of Lake Superior. Much of the environmental degradation is concentrated in the lower 20 miles of the river. Environmental problems affecting this stretch of the river include restrictions on consumption of fish and wildlife, fish tumors, contaminated sediments, beach closings, loss of habitat and restrictions on dredging. The St. Louis River was identified or "listed" as an Area of Concern in 1989 under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Of the 43 Areas of Concern identified by the United States and Canada, only two on the U.S. side of the border have been "delisted." GLRI funds are being used to accelerate cleanup work in the remaining Areas of Concern.
EPA has been working closely with Minnesota, Wisconsin and the St. Louis River Alliance to protect, restore and enhance the St. Louis River. The goal of these efforts is to address environmental problems affecting the watershed and, ultimately, delist the St. Louis River Area of Concern. In addition to the activities being funded by the $3 million announced today, a Great Lakes Legacy Act funded assessment of cleanup options for the contaminated sediments in Spirit Lake is already underway. Cleanup of the Spirit Lake area, including habitat restoration, could start as early as 2015. U.S. Steel is the nonfederal partner in this project. In addition, U.S. Steel, overseen by EPA and MPCA, is currently investigating contamination on its property near the river. Any cleanup of the property will be coordinated with future sediment removal and redevelopment opportunities. The Duluth Port Authority has proposed redeveloping 130 acres of the U.S. Steel property.
EPA and MPCA to Provide More than $3 Million to Restore the St. Louis River
Duluth (June 21, 2013) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced more than $3 million to help restore the St. Louis River Area of Concern. EPA will provide $2.2 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funds and MPCA will provide an additional $1.1 million through the Minnesota Clean Water Fund.
The money will be used to fund a variety of activities to guide clean-up work within the St. Louis River Area of Concern, one of 38 such areas within the Great Lakes region. The $3 million will be used to assess cleanup options at three sites; develop engineering plans for the restoration of seven sites; evaluate the potential use of dredged river sediment for use in local habitat restoration projects and conduct ecosystem monitoring activities.
"I am pleased to announce that EPA is providing an additional $2.2 million to help restore the headwaters of the Great Lakes," said EPA Regional Administrator and Great Lakes National Program Manager Susan Hedman. "EPA and MPCA are jointly funding the next phase of work needed to reverse over one hundred years of environmental degradation in the St. Louis River Area of Concern."
"The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is delighted to be working with our federal partners, including EPA, to secure funding to address legacy pollutants, a result of historic practices in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. With the help of our local partners, we are putting finishing touches on a detailed, multi-million dollar clean up and restoration plan to delist this Area of Concern by the year 2025," said John Linc Stine, Commissioner for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
"The St. Louis River is a recreational Minnesota jewel for local people, as well as for tourists and sports enthusiasts from all around our nation and world. It's a resource central to our enjoyment and our economy," said Rep. Rick Nolan. "We commend EPA and MPCA for their commitment, involvement and contribution to a clean and healthy St. Louis River."
"The City of Duluth is grateful for the partnership and shared commitment to the health and preservation of our natural surroundings," said Mayor Don Ness. "This funding will allow tremendous progress in the restoration of a huge community resource that is a critical part of Duluth’s vision. Working together to care for our natural assets allows Duluth to remain one of the most beautiful places in the nation and one of the most sought-after outdoor adventure hubs in the world."
"The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is pleased with the announcement of the investment being made on the St. Louis River Area of Concern. The Band's water regulatory authority and ceded territory rights obligate the Band to exercise stewardship with regard to the health of the river. We look forward to working in partnership with the EPA and MPCA on developing a plan for a cleaner river," said Ferdinand Martineau, Secretary-Treasurer, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The St. Louis River is the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior. The St. Louis River Area of Concern is extensive, consisting of portions of the St. Louis River watershed in Minnesota, the Nemadji River watershed in Wisconsin and the western tip of Lake Superior. Much of the environmental degradation is concentrated in the lower 20 miles of the river. Environmental problems affecting this stretch of the river include restrictions on consumption of fish and wildlife, fish tumors, contaminated sediments, beach closings, loss of habitat and restrictions on dredging. The St. Louis River was identified or "listed" as an Area of Concern in 1989 under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Of the 43 Areas of Concern identified by the United States and Canada, only two on the U.S. side of the border have been "delisted." GLRI funds are being used to accelerate cleanup work in the remaining Areas of Concern.
EPA has been working closely with Minnesota, Wisconsin and the St. Louis River Alliance to protect, restore and enhance the St. Louis River. The goal of these efforts is to address environmental problems affecting the watershed and, ultimately, delist the St. Louis River Area of Concern. In addition to the activities being funded by the $3 million announced today, a Great Lakes Legacy Act funded assessment of cleanup options for the contaminated sediments in Spirit Lake is already underway. Cleanup of the Spirit Lake area, including habitat restoration, could start as early as 2015. U.S. Steel is the nonfederal partner in this project. In addition, U.S. Steel, overseen by EPA and MPCA, is currently investigating contamination on its property near the river. Any cleanup of the property will be coordinated with future sediment removal and redevelopment opportunities. The Duluth Port Authority has proposed redeveloping 130 acres of the U.S. Steel property.
GEN. DEMPSEY SAYS CYBERCOM BECOMMING MORE PROMINENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dempsey: Cybercom Likely to Continue Gaining Prominence
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2013 - U.S. Cyber Command, currently a subunified command under U.S. Strategic Command, likely will one day become a separate command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here today.
Noting that the cyber threat will only continue to grow, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told attendees at a Brookings Institution forum that he anticipates a day when operations in cyberspace become a dominant factor in military operations.
"But, at this point, Stratcom, with its global reach responsibilities, as well as its space responsibilities, is also able to manage the workload that comes with being the next senior headquarters to Cybercom," the chairman said. "I'm actually content [with] the way we're organized right now."
The chairman noted that the national effort to protect critical civilian infrastructure lags behind the military's efforts to secure its own networks, largely because information about cyber threats isn't being shared with the government.
"Right now, threat information primarily runs in one direction: from the government to operators of critical infrastructure," he said. Changing this will require legislation, he added.
The nation's top military officer said he's confident that indicators of an impending attack can be shared in a way that preserves the privacy, anonymity, and civil liberties of network users.
Cybercom will assume a new importance when that conduit opens, the chairman said. "If we get the kind of information sharing we need, that could be a catalyst for changing the organization, because the span and scope of responsibility will change," he explained.
Dempsey: Cybercom Likely to Continue Gaining Prominence
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 27, 2013 - U.S. Cyber Command, currently a subunified command under U.S. Strategic Command, likely will one day become a separate command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here today.
Noting that the cyber threat will only continue to grow, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told attendees at a Brookings Institution forum that he anticipates a day when operations in cyberspace become a dominant factor in military operations.
"But, at this point, Stratcom, with its global reach responsibilities, as well as its space responsibilities, is also able to manage the workload that comes with being the next senior headquarters to Cybercom," the chairman said. "I'm actually content [with] the way we're organized right now."
The chairman noted that the national effort to protect critical civilian infrastructure lags behind the military's efforts to secure its own networks, largely because information about cyber threats isn't being shared with the government.
"Right now, threat information primarily runs in one direction: from the government to operators of critical infrastructure," he said. Changing this will require legislation, he added.
The nation's top military officer said he's confident that indicators of an impending attack can be shared in a way that preserves the privacy, anonymity, and civil liberties of network users.
Cybercom will assume a new importance when that conduit opens, the chairman said. "If we get the kind of information sharing we need, that could be a catalyst for changing the organization, because the span and scope of responsibility will change," he explained.
ENERGY STAR REQUIREMENTS STRENGTHENED BY EPA
FROM: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Strengthens Energy Star Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers
Encourages "connected" features, including smart grid functionality
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised its Energy Star requirements for residential refrigerators and freezers. The updated requirements raise the bar for energy efficiency in these products and, for the first time, encourage manufacturers of Energy Star appliances to include optional "connected" features. These features would offer consumers more ways to reduce the energy consumption of their refrigerators and freezers, help lower their utility bills, and better protect the environment and the climate.
Under the new standards, Energy Star certified refrigerators and freezers will use at least 10 percent less energy than models meeting 2014 federal minimum efficiency standards. If all refrigerators and freezers sold in the United States were to meet the updated requirements, energy cost savings would grow to more than $890 million each year and reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of those from more than one million vehicles. Additionally, by recycling an old refrigerator and replacing it with a new Energy Star certified refrigerator, consumers can save from $150–$1,100 on energy costs over the product’s lifetime.
"We can all do our part in meeting the challenge of climate change," said Janet McCabe, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "By choosing Energy Star appliances, families can save energy, save money, and reduce carbon pollution."
Certain Energy Star refrigerators and freezers with connected features will provide consumers new convenience and energy-saving opportunities. These products will allow consumers to view real-time energy use, receive energy-related messages, such as an alert when the door has been left open, and manage appliance settings remotely. Refrigerators and freezers with connected functionality will also be "smart grid"-ready, meaning that with consumer permission, they will be able to respond to utility signals, including curtailing operations during more expensive peak demand times.
To earn the Energy Star label, product performance must be certified by an EPA-recognized third party, based on testing in an EPA-recognized laboratory. The updated Energy Star refrigerator and freezer specification will go into effect on September 15, 2014.
Products, homes, and buildings that earn the Energy Star label prevent greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy efficiency requirements set by the U.S. EPA. In 2012 alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved $24 billion on their utility bills and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to those of 50 million vehicles. To date, more than 1.4 million new homes and 20,000 facilities, including offices, schools, hospitals, and industrial plants have earned the Energy Star label.
EPA Strengthens Energy Star Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers
Encourages "connected" features, including smart grid functionality
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised its Energy Star requirements for residential refrigerators and freezers. The updated requirements raise the bar for energy efficiency in these products and, for the first time, encourage manufacturers of Energy Star appliances to include optional "connected" features. These features would offer consumers more ways to reduce the energy consumption of their refrigerators and freezers, help lower their utility bills, and better protect the environment and the climate.
Under the new standards, Energy Star certified refrigerators and freezers will use at least 10 percent less energy than models meeting 2014 federal minimum efficiency standards. If all refrigerators and freezers sold in the United States were to meet the updated requirements, energy cost savings would grow to more than $890 million each year and reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of those from more than one million vehicles. Additionally, by recycling an old refrigerator and replacing it with a new Energy Star certified refrigerator, consumers can save from $150–$1,100 on energy costs over the product’s lifetime.
"We can all do our part in meeting the challenge of climate change," said Janet McCabe, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "By choosing Energy Star appliances, families can save energy, save money, and reduce carbon pollution."
Certain Energy Star refrigerators and freezers with connected features will provide consumers new convenience and energy-saving opportunities. These products will allow consumers to view real-time energy use, receive energy-related messages, such as an alert when the door has been left open, and manage appliance settings remotely. Refrigerators and freezers with connected functionality will also be "smart grid"-ready, meaning that with consumer permission, they will be able to respond to utility signals, including curtailing operations during more expensive peak demand times.
To earn the Energy Star label, product performance must be certified by an EPA-recognized third party, based on testing in an EPA-recognized laboratory. The updated Energy Star refrigerator and freezer specification will go into effect on September 15, 2014.
Products, homes, and buildings that earn the Energy Star label prevent greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy efficiency requirements set by the U.S. EPA. In 2012 alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved $24 billion on their utility bills and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to those of 50 million vehicles. To date, more than 1.4 million new homes and 20,000 facilities, including offices, schools, hospitals, and industrial plants have earned the Energy Star label.
TEMPERATURE ISLANDS IN THE CITY
 |
| The 'urban heat island effect' raises temperatures in cities compared with surrounding areas. Credit: NASA |
Summertime: Hot Time in the City
It's the first day of summer, a hot time in the desert city of Phoenix. And in cities across the United States--and the Northern Hemisphere.
Heat islands, as these urban hot spots are called, are metropolitan areas significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas. Why?
"Us," says sociologist Sharon Harlan of Arizona State University (ASU). "It's all due to the effects of humans. We've modified the surface of the land in ways that retain heat."
Urban heat islands are the result. Soil and grass have been replaced with materials such as asphalt and concrete that absorb heat during the day and re-radiate it at night, causing higher temperatures.
Summer in a blistering desert
Harlan and colleagues in fields across the social, natural and health sciences are studying urban heat islands--and their opposites, park cool islands where plant growth throws cold water on burning temperatures.
They're conducting the research via a National Science Foundation (NSF) Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) grant. CNH is one of NSF's Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability, or SEES, programs.
"Cities can be hot and uncomfortable places for the people who live in them, with some populations especially vulnerable to health problems from urban heat," says Sarah Ruth, CNH program director in NSF's Directorate for Geosciences.
"The city environment and its human inhabitants form a complex system with multiple connections. These researchers have uncovered important information about this system and the interactions among its components.
"The results suggest ways city officials and residents can work together to create places where fewer people suffer the effects of extreme temperatures."
The hot, arid Sonoran Desert is central Arizona's natural environment. Humans have transformed the desert over thousands of years, beginning with early Native American subsistence farmers and continuing with late 19th century Anglo-American commercial growers and 20th century sunbelt migrants.
Metropolitan Phoenix is an ideal laboratory for investigating heat-related human vulnerability, says Harlan. Rapid urbanization has replaced natural vegetation and agricultural fields, increasing summer temperatures during the past 50 years.
Islands of green
What's one of the answers? Park cool islands, found the scientists.
They evaluated the effects of plants' cool greenness on a Phoenix inner-city park.
The results were recently published in the journal Urban Ecosystems. Along with Harlan, co-authors of the paper, all from ASU, are Juan Declet-Barreto, Anthony Brazel, Chris Martin and Winston Chow.
They're also working through the NSF Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site, one of 26 such NSF LTER sites across the nation and around the world.
"We predicted air and surface temperatures under two different vegetation regimes: existing conditions representative of Phoenix urban core neighborhoods, and a scenario using principles of landscape design and architecture, and urban heat island mitigation strategies," write the scientists.
They found that the air beneath and around "canopied vegetation"--trees--was cooler than the surroundings.
Larger plants such as trees absorb and reflect the Sun's rays, buffering the heat index. Scientists call it a "microclimate ecosystem service," better known as, simply, shade.
Trees also reduce hot air by turning water from liquid to gas inside their leaves. "Temperatures then fall in the immediate environment," says Martin.
It all adds up to a park cool island. "Park cool islands are usually found in irregular patterns in a city," Declet-Barreto says. "They're nested within warmer spots."
The Latino Urban Core
The team studied the role of park cool islands in a low-income, ethnic minority community in inner-city Phoenix.
The area is called the Latino Urban Core. It's bounded by industrial land to the north, south and east and an interstate highway to the west. The neighborhood's main feature is an electric utility company easement currently used as "linear park space almost entirely devoid of vegetation," states the Urban Ecosystems paper.
The Latino Urban Core's sparse vegetation is mostly in residents' yards. Patches of exposed soil with nothing growing on them are scattered across vacant lots, yards, and the grounds of the "linear park."
Parks in low-income neighborhoods tend to be hotter than parks in higher-income areas, research has shown. Although residents in low-income areas need places to cool off, these neighborhoods have less inherent cooling capacity as there's less green space.
Inner-city green space--lacking in Phoenix's Latino Urban Core--is a crucial component of urban heat island mitigation, Declet-Barreto says. "But it's made more difficult by ongoing debates over urban amenities like parks and the needed resources, such as water, tax dollars, local government will and regular maintenance."
"Ecologies of fear" often arise in neglected green spaces. "They're legacies of environmental and racial discrimination, inner-city decay and a continuing urban planning focus on fringe [suburban] development," write the researchers.
Studies have shown that in Phoenix, inner-city areas bear higher property tax burdens in comparison with suburbs, but the former receive significantly fewer tax dollars for parks, recreation and water supplies.
Minority and low-income communities are increasingly addressing such disparities by demanding a more equitable distribution of urban amenities, such as green spaces like parks.
In low-income communities, parks are often the only available public gathering places. Green spaces, scientists say, can provide cultural, social and--more directly applicable to extreme heat mitigation--human health and ecological benefits.
Cooling down urban heat islands
Finding ways to offset high temperatures in desert cities where the weather is chronically hot, says Harlan, is critical.
Extreme heat, scientists have found, is a threat to human health, increases atmospheric pollutants and energy and water use, alters regional hydrology and affects interactions between humans and ecological processes.
"The problem of heat-related deaths and illnesses is very serious," says Harlan. "Each year, heat fatalities in the U.S. happen in greater numbers than mortality from any other type of weather disaster." High heat wave events--unexpected and long-duration heat waves--are becoming more common in cities like Phoenix, Chicago and Paris.
Climate change and rapidly growing cities are likely to fuel more such events.
"Our research suggests that climate intervention strategies should be targeted at the neighborhoods and population groups that are most vulnerable to environmental hazards like extreme heat events," says Harlan. "We hope our results will be used in better decision-making about climate adaptation in cities."
Greening parks is an intervention strategy, she says, for urban heat island mitigation that could be supported with public resources.
"If targeted to low-income neighborhoods where vulnerability to heat is greater," says Harlan, "it would address an environmental inequity and provide better ecosystem services for these neighborhoods."
One antidote to an urban heat island, it turns out, is another island, a place filled with shade trees and lush growth: a park cool island.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)