Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., which has already made a name for itself by partnering in a Hawaii program that recycles old fishing nets for energy, is at it again. The company has joined in the Fishing for Energy partnership with Covanta Energy, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the NOAA Marine Debris Program. Together, they will collect old or abandoned fishing nets and other gear at the Oregon coastal ports of Garibaldi and Newport, and send it to Covanta’s waste-to-energy plant. The goal: to help prevent oceanborne derelict fishing gear from harming marine life, and to start making a dent in the notorious Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Derelict Fishing Gear and Marine Health
NOAA has identified marine debris as a significant problem, contributing to stress on fisheries and even interfering with navigation. The Pacific Garbage patch is only the surface manifestation of a marine debris problem that extends to the ocean floor. The Fishing for Energy Partnership launched in 20008 and in one year has already collected more than 200 tons of fishing gear from ports on the East and West coasts, some of it recovered from the ocean by volunteer fishermen. The rest of the collection consists of old gear deposited in drop-off bins on land. It’s a win-win for the fishing industry. Fishermen get a free and convenient way to dispose of a big chunk of mostly plastic debris from their operations, eliminating any incentive to dump the stuff illegally while relieving fisheries of unnecessary deaths caused by “ghost nets.” Meanwhile, the waste is diverted from local landfills and turned over to waste-to-energy plants. The fishing debris collected at Garibaldi and Newport will be brought to a Covanta facility.
Schnitzer Steel and Fishing Nets
In the Hawaii fishing gear recycling program, Schnitzer Steel’s corporate focus on metals recycling created an ideal platform for shifting into plastics recycling. The company first began partnering with NOAA in 2002 and volunteered to service a free derelict fishing gear collection bin, using its existing trucks and recycling machines to transport the debris and cut it into manageable pieces. In the same way, the creative use of existing resources along with active collaboration between willing partners will be the key to keeping Fishing for Energy in Oregon a cost-effective, long term solution.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
46 Energy Frontier Research Centers Funded by DOE
46 Energy Frontier Research Centers Funded by DOE
Written by Yael Borofsky
Published on August 10th, 2009
Posted in alternative energy, technology, wind energy
After a White House announcement last April regarding the provision of $777 million to fund 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC’s) advancing innovation in clean energy technology, the Department of Energy (DOE) recognized the completion of the funding process last Thursday. The investment represents a much-needed show of governmental support for the research and development of the numerous energy breakthroughs necessary to transition the U.S from dirty to clean energy.
Among the list of 46, 31 centers are affiliated with universities, twelve are DOE national laboratories, two are non-profit organizations, and one is a corporate research laboratory. In total, the DOE has awarded $377 million in funding this year, with $277 million coming from the economic stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - ARRA) and the additional $100 million provided by the DOE’s FY2009 budget.
» See also: When the Power Goes Out, Renewable Energy Trailer Goes to Work in Michigan
» Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
The full $777 million promised in April will be partially allocated over five years to 30 of the institutions in increments of $2-5 million per institution ($100 million per year) while 16 institutions have received five years of funding up front ($277 million from ARRA).
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who made the announcement last week, drew attention to the need to pursue clean energy innovation and breakthroughs in clean energy technology. Over the five year period, the projects will employ 1,800 people focused on solar energy, biofuels, transportation, energy efficiency, electricity storage and transmission, clean coal and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and nuclear energy.
In light of the limited funding available for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) - which rejected 98% of applicants to its July call for “transformational energy proposals” - and the disappointing bumping of RE-ENERGYSE from the FY2010 energy budget, Chu’s announcement could be a harbinger of at least some promising improvements in the clean tech world.
As the time approaches for the Senate to make a decision on Waxman and Markey’s controversial American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454 - ACES), it remains to be seen whether Congress heeds Chu’s (and others’) call for more aggressive efforts to usher in a revolution in clean energy technology.
Written by Yael Borofsky
Published on August 10th, 2009
Posted in alternative energy, technology, wind energy
After a White House announcement last April regarding the provision of $777 million to fund 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC’s) advancing innovation in clean energy technology, the Department of Energy (DOE) recognized the completion of the funding process last Thursday. The investment represents a much-needed show of governmental support for the research and development of the numerous energy breakthroughs necessary to transition the U.S from dirty to clean energy.
Among the list of 46, 31 centers are affiliated with universities, twelve are DOE national laboratories, two are non-profit organizations, and one is a corporate research laboratory. In total, the DOE has awarded $377 million in funding this year, with $277 million coming from the economic stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - ARRA) and the additional $100 million provided by the DOE’s FY2009 budget.
» See also: When the Power Goes Out, Renewable Energy Trailer Goes to Work in Michigan
» Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
The full $777 million promised in April will be partially allocated over five years to 30 of the institutions in increments of $2-5 million per institution ($100 million per year) while 16 institutions have received five years of funding up front ($277 million from ARRA).
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who made the announcement last week, drew attention to the need to pursue clean energy innovation and breakthroughs in clean energy technology. Over the five year period, the projects will employ 1,800 people focused on solar energy, biofuels, transportation, energy efficiency, electricity storage and transmission, clean coal and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and nuclear energy.
In light of the limited funding available for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) - which rejected 98% of applicants to its July call for “transformational energy proposals” - and the disappointing bumping of RE-ENERGYSE from the FY2010 energy budget, Chu’s announcement could be a harbinger of at least some promising improvements in the clean tech world.
As the time approaches for the Senate to make a decision on Waxman and Markey’s controversial American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454 - ACES), it remains to be seen whether Congress heeds Chu’s (and others’) call for more aggressive efforts to usher in a revolution in clean energy technology.
PedalPower
A recent study concluded that it’s dangerous to text while driving.
What about texting while bicycling?
That’s also not advised, but a device from a company called PedalPower+ will charge your Blackberry while you ride. It also will charge your iPod.
The device, similar to the old school dynamo systems used to power headlamps via the back wheel of a bike, also stores generated power in a battery and will charge with solar panels even when you’re not riding, according to a report from the Austrailian Broadcasting Corp.
Gizmag, a technology blog, explains that developers spent three years working on PedalPower+, to work out the kinks of safely regulating current to electronic devices via a spinning bike tire.
As a result, the patented technology will charge a mobile phone from flat to finished in about two hours, the company says.
How much? Right now, the devices are only available Down Under. But the company says it’s setting up distributors in the United States and Europe.
What about texting while bicycling?
That’s also not advised, but a device from a company called PedalPower+ will charge your Blackberry while you ride. It also will charge your iPod.
The device, similar to the old school dynamo systems used to power headlamps via the back wheel of a bike, also stores generated power in a battery and will charge with solar panels even when you’re not riding, according to a report from the Austrailian Broadcasting Corp.
Gizmag, a technology blog, explains that developers spent three years working on PedalPower+, to work out the kinks of safely regulating current to electronic devices via a spinning bike tire.
As a result, the patented technology will charge a mobile phone from flat to finished in about two hours, the company says.
How much? Right now, the devices are only available Down Under. But the company says it’s setting up distributors in the United States and Europe.
Is Healthcare a Right?
John David Lewis, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Duke University
Posted: August 12, 2009 09:29 PM
Read More: Government Health Care, Health, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Care Right, Health Insurance, Healthcare, John David Lewis, Medicare, Obama Health Care, Right To Healthcare, Socialized Medicine, Politics News
After fifty years of growing government programs, health care costs continue to rise. The U.S. government now controls nearly half of all health care dollars, and the crisis is becoming acute. The plans we are seeing from Washington are not innovations, but rather extensions of the government interventions we have embraced for three generations.
But rather than assume that more government involvement is the answer, should we not at least consider that the source of the problem may be those very interventions? And, more deeply, should we not even consider that the reason for this decades-long pattern is not economic, but moral: the idea that people have a "right" to medical care?
Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s, when Medicare and other programs threw billions of dollars into the industry. Fiscally, Medicare is approaching monumental insolvency, with liabilities in the range of twenty-trillion dollars. To create another bureaucratic labyrinth now -- which advocates are proud to say will cost only a trillion dollars over ten years -- all but guarantees higher prices, and a greater crisis in the next decade.
But such economic arguments have not stopped the train to further government interventions, and we should ask why.
The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a "right" to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.
But the very idea that health care -- or any good provided by others -- is a "right" is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. "To secure these rights governments are instituted," which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.
By this understanding of rights, no one may force you to act in ways contrary to your own interests, as long as you do not demand that they act contrary to their own interests. There is no right to a good outcome -- no right to food, clothing, shelter, or economic security -- only a right to pursue that outcome, with the voluntary cooperation of others if they wish to offer it.
But consider what a right to a guaranteed outcome would mean. It would require an infringement upon the lives and liberty of those who are forced to provide it. If there is a right to food, there must be farmers to provide it -- or taxpayers forced to pay for it. Government medical plans with unique privileges, such as Medicare, institutionalize force against those who are to provide the claimed "right." And yet, neither the principle nor the consequences are changed if the force is spread out over millions of people in the form of a tax return.
These two concepts of rights -- rights as the right to liberty, versus rights as the rights to things -- cannot coexist in the same respect at the same time. If I claim that my right to life means my right to medicine, then I am demanding the right to force others to produce the values that I need. This ends up being a negation of personal sovereignty, and of individual rights.
To reform our health care industry we should challenge the premises that invited government intervention in the first place. The moral premise is that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no "right" to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. There is no "right" to anything that others must produce, because no one may claim a "right" to force others to provide it. Health care is a service, and we all depend upon thinking professionals for it. To place doctors under hamstringing bureaucratic control is to invite poor results.
The economic premise is that the government can create prosperity by redistributing the wealth of its citizens. This is the road to bankruptcy, not universal prosperity. The truth of this is playing out before our eyes, as medical prices balloon with every new intervention, and we face the largest deficits in human history.
If Congress wants to address health care issues, it can begin with three things: (1) tort reform, to free medical specialists from annual insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars; (2) Medicare reform, to face squarely the program's insolvency; and (3) regulatory reform, to roll-back the onerous rules that force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (who produce the care that others then demand as a "right") into satisfying bureaucratic dictates rather than bringing value to their patients.
Posted: August 12, 2009 09:29 PM
Read More: Government Health Care, Health, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Health Care Right, Health Insurance, Healthcare, John David Lewis, Medicare, Obama Health Care, Right To Healthcare, Socialized Medicine, Politics News
After fifty years of growing government programs, health care costs continue to rise. The U.S. government now controls nearly half of all health care dollars, and the crisis is becoming acute. The plans we are seeing from Washington are not innovations, but rather extensions of the government interventions we have embraced for three generations.
But rather than assume that more government involvement is the answer, should we not at least consider that the source of the problem may be those very interventions? And, more deeply, should we not even consider that the reason for this decades-long pattern is not economic, but moral: the idea that people have a "right" to medical care?
Historically, the huge rise in health care costs began in the 1960s, when Medicare and other programs threw billions of dollars into the industry. Fiscally, Medicare is approaching monumental insolvency, with liabilities in the range of twenty-trillion dollars. To create another bureaucratic labyrinth now -- which advocates are proud to say will cost only a trillion dollars over ten years -- all but guarantees higher prices, and a greater crisis in the next decade.
But such economic arguments have not stopped the train to further government interventions, and we should ask why.
The reason is that advocates of government medicine are upholding health care as a moral right. The moral goal of a "right" to health care is blinding people to the cause and effect relationship between government actions and rising prices.
But the very idea that health care -- or any good provided by others -- is a "right" is a contradiction. The rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these is a right to act, not a right to things. "To secure these rights governments are instituted," which means to secure the rights of each person to exercise his or her liberty in pursuit of his or her own happiness.
By this understanding of rights, no one may force you to act in ways contrary to your own interests, as long as you do not demand that they act contrary to their own interests. There is no right to a good outcome -- no right to food, clothing, shelter, or economic security -- only a right to pursue that outcome, with the voluntary cooperation of others if they wish to offer it.
But consider what a right to a guaranteed outcome would mean. It would require an infringement upon the lives and liberty of those who are forced to provide it. If there is a right to food, there must be farmers to provide it -- or taxpayers forced to pay for it. Government medical plans with unique privileges, such as Medicare, institutionalize force against those who are to provide the claimed "right." And yet, neither the principle nor the consequences are changed if the force is spread out over millions of people in the form of a tax return.
These two concepts of rights -- rights as the right to liberty, versus rights as the rights to things -- cannot coexist in the same respect at the same time. If I claim that my right to life means my right to medicine, then I am demanding the right to force others to produce the values that I need. This ends up being a negation of personal sovereignty, and of individual rights.
To reform our health care industry we should challenge the premises that invited government intervention in the first place. The moral premise is that medical care is a right. It is not. There was no "right" to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it. There is no "right" to anything that others must produce, because no one may claim a "right" to force others to provide it. Health care is a service, and we all depend upon thinking professionals for it. To place doctors under hamstringing bureaucratic control is to invite poor results.
The economic premise is that the government can create prosperity by redistributing the wealth of its citizens. This is the road to bankruptcy, not universal prosperity. The truth of this is playing out before our eyes, as medical prices balloon with every new intervention, and we face the largest deficits in human history.
If Congress wants to address health care issues, it can begin with three things: (1) tort reform, to free medical specialists from annual insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars; (2) Medicare reform, to face squarely the program's insolvency; and (3) regulatory reform, to roll-back the onerous rules that force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (who produce the care that others then demand as a "right") into satisfying bureaucratic dictates rather than bringing value to their patients.
Weatherization Stimulus Money Not Being Utilized - page 2
Nonprofits scramble for dollars as they wait
And so, they're waiting for wage rules that are now expected Friday in 15 states. The rest are due at the end of the month. (Of course by then the Summer will be over)
Crisp's group is one of 30 agencies in Michigan given $195 million to weatherize homes, and none of that money has been spent so far on the actual act of weatherization. As in other states, only a small percentage of the money has been spent to buy equipment, perform training and otherwise prepare for the work.
In Nebraska, that amounts to about $1.5 million of $41.6 million in weatherization stimulus money. The community-action programs Zamora oversees in Idaho have spent just $700,000 of that state's $30 million pool, none on actual weatherization work.
Sperling said many states have compensated for the delays by spending money already budgeted for 2009 weatherization more quickly than usual. And the Department of Energy, he said, will have a better grasp of how much stimulus money has been spent when quarterly reports start coming in at the end of August.
But in the places where workers were hired months ago in anticipation of an influx of stimulus money, some nonprofits are running out of cash diverted from other places to make that payroll.
"They've basically been compensating people with money they don't have," Crisp said.
And so, they're waiting for wage rules that are now expected Friday in 15 states. The rest are due at the end of the month. (Of course by then the Summer will be over)
Crisp's group is one of 30 agencies in Michigan given $195 million to weatherize homes, and none of that money has been spent so far on the actual act of weatherization. As in other states, only a small percentage of the money has been spent to buy equipment, perform training and otherwise prepare for the work.
In Nebraska, that amounts to about $1.5 million of $41.6 million in weatherization stimulus money. The community-action programs Zamora oversees in Idaho have spent just $700,000 of that state's $30 million pool, none on actual weatherization work.
Sperling said many states have compensated for the delays by spending money already budgeted for 2009 weatherization more quickly than usual. And the Department of Energy, he said, will have a better grasp of how much stimulus money has been spent when quarterly reports start coming in at the end of August.
But in the places where workers were hired months ago in anticipation of an influx of stimulus money, some nonprofits are running out of cash diverted from other places to make that payroll.
"They've basically been compensating people with money they don't have," Crisp said.
Weatherization Stimulus Money Not Being Utilized
updated 2:50 p.m. PT, Wed., Aug 12, 2009
LINCOLN, Neb. - Jackie Harpst expected a busy summer at her nonprofit housing agency, as work crews backed by Nebraska's share of $5 billion in federal stimulus money headed out to seal windows and spread insulation.
Months after she thought work would begin, not a single window has been caulked. And she's still not sure if her team will be able to get to work adding insulation before the summer heat passes — or even before the winter's chill sets in.
"We've hired people and purchased equipment with the anticipation we'd be able to spend the money soon, and now, as we see it drag on and on, it's just very frustrating," said Harpst, housing director of the Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska.
Harpst is among the state and local officials nationwide who are sitting on millions in stimulus money targeted for weatherization, worried about running afoul of arcane federal rules governing how much workers should be paid for making energy-saving home improvements.
They blame months of mixed signals sent by federal officials, whom they accuse of fumbling the effort to spend money designed to give a languishing economy a boost by lowering utility bills and employing construction workers idled by the housing slump.
"It seems like it's just been one roadblock after another," said Christina Zamora, energy program manager for the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho.
Officials hold back dollars
More than 40 states have received about half of the $5 billion allotted for weatherization efforts in the $787 billion stimulus package, according to the Department of Energy. Because that money was sent to hundreds of nonprofit groups scattered across the country, there isn't a clear estimate of how much has been spent so far.
But several local and state officials interviewed by The Associated Press said they are holding back. David Bradley, executive director of the National Community Action Foundation, said the "vast majority" of states aren't spending the money. The U.S. Department of Energy official in charge of the weatherization program also acknowledged there has been confusion "across the board."
"We have been told by a number of states and local agencies that they have delayed spending recovery-act money," said the official, Gilbert Sperling.
The $5 billion set aside in the stimulus package is a massive influx of money into an old program aimed at reducing energy costs. For more than 30 years, the federally funded, state-run programs have used a broad range of work, such as spreading insulation and installing new heating and cooling systems, to make the homes of low-income people more energy efficient.
Sperling and others responsible for overseeing the program maintain that as early as March, they clearly said that money for weatherizing should be spent in spite of any uncertainty created by the Davis-Bacon Act. The Depression-era law requires contractors to pay wages equal to those prevailing locally for public works projects, and the stimulus law applied it to weatherization projects for the first time.
"I'm satisfied we have communicated as clearly as we can to the states and the agencies that we want them to move forward spending recovery funds even before (the U.S. Department of Labor) issues new wage determinations," Sperling said.
Lack of clarity
Those who oversee the nonprofit groups and agencies that states have used for years to perform the weatherization work tell a different story, saying that Sperling and others flip-flopped in recent months. Zamora and others said federal officials first said the weatherization work could begin in April, then cautioned in June that the Davis-Bacon Act would apply and the spending should be put on hold.
Federal officials said at a July meeting attended by state and local weatherization workers to go ahead and start the work without the wage rules in place. The same advice came in letters sent July 10 and July 24.
"They go back and forth and it makes me nervous," Zamora said. "There's been a lack of clarity."
Tom Markey, a stimulus coordinator at the U.S. Department of Labor, said there is no reason to wait. The Departments of Energy and Labor said in their July 24 letter to states and nonprofits receiving the money that "state and local agencies should be weatherizing homes now."
"Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for residential construction exist in just about every part of the country, therefore, any state or community-action agency could have begun work as soon as they received their funds by paying these existing prevailing wage rates," Markey said.
33 metro areas where builders are confident
Several recipients of that letter told the AP said they are wary of following such advice because, they say, federal officials have previously been unclear on whether existing wage levels for other occupations would apply to weatherization work. They also reject the suggestion from federal officials they could simply issue back pay should the weatherization rates eventually be set at a higher wage, saying it could cause an administrative mess.
"They've been saying since April they'd have things straightened out and we'd be able to spend the money. Why we would we go forward now without the rules in place? So far nothing they've said ... has come to fruition," said Jim Crisp, executive director of the Michigan Community Action Agency Association.
NOW is the time to do thid weatherization work, as it will miss the point if its done in the Winter, and will be more difficult to do.
LINCOLN, Neb. - Jackie Harpst expected a busy summer at her nonprofit housing agency, as work crews backed by Nebraska's share of $5 billion in federal stimulus money headed out to seal windows and spread insulation.
Months after she thought work would begin, not a single window has been caulked. And she's still not sure if her team will be able to get to work adding insulation before the summer heat passes — or even before the winter's chill sets in.
"We've hired people and purchased equipment with the anticipation we'd be able to spend the money soon, and now, as we see it drag on and on, it's just very frustrating," said Harpst, housing director of the Community Action Partnership of Mid-Nebraska.
Harpst is among the state and local officials nationwide who are sitting on millions in stimulus money targeted for weatherization, worried about running afoul of arcane federal rules governing how much workers should be paid for making energy-saving home improvements.
They blame months of mixed signals sent by federal officials, whom they accuse of fumbling the effort to spend money designed to give a languishing economy a boost by lowering utility bills and employing construction workers idled by the housing slump.
"It seems like it's just been one roadblock after another," said Christina Zamora, energy program manager for the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho.
Officials hold back dollars
More than 40 states have received about half of the $5 billion allotted for weatherization efforts in the $787 billion stimulus package, according to the Department of Energy. Because that money was sent to hundreds of nonprofit groups scattered across the country, there isn't a clear estimate of how much has been spent so far.
But several local and state officials interviewed by The Associated Press said they are holding back. David Bradley, executive director of the National Community Action Foundation, said the "vast majority" of states aren't spending the money. The U.S. Department of Energy official in charge of the weatherization program also acknowledged there has been confusion "across the board."
"We have been told by a number of states and local agencies that they have delayed spending recovery-act money," said the official, Gilbert Sperling.
The $5 billion set aside in the stimulus package is a massive influx of money into an old program aimed at reducing energy costs. For more than 30 years, the federally funded, state-run programs have used a broad range of work, such as spreading insulation and installing new heating and cooling systems, to make the homes of low-income people more energy efficient.
Sperling and others responsible for overseeing the program maintain that as early as March, they clearly said that money for weatherizing should be spent in spite of any uncertainty created by the Davis-Bacon Act. The Depression-era law requires contractors to pay wages equal to those prevailing locally for public works projects, and the stimulus law applied it to weatherization projects for the first time.
"I'm satisfied we have communicated as clearly as we can to the states and the agencies that we want them to move forward spending recovery funds even before (the U.S. Department of Labor) issues new wage determinations," Sperling said.
Lack of clarity
Those who oversee the nonprofit groups and agencies that states have used for years to perform the weatherization work tell a different story, saying that Sperling and others flip-flopped in recent months. Zamora and others said federal officials first said the weatherization work could begin in April, then cautioned in June that the Davis-Bacon Act would apply and the spending should be put on hold.
Federal officials said at a July meeting attended by state and local weatherization workers to go ahead and start the work without the wage rules in place. The same advice came in letters sent July 10 and July 24.
"They go back and forth and it makes me nervous," Zamora said. "There's been a lack of clarity."
Tom Markey, a stimulus coordinator at the U.S. Department of Labor, said there is no reason to wait. The Departments of Energy and Labor said in their July 24 letter to states and nonprofits receiving the money that "state and local agencies should be weatherizing homes now."
"Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for residential construction exist in just about every part of the country, therefore, any state or community-action agency could have begun work as soon as they received their funds by paying these existing prevailing wage rates," Markey said.
33 metro areas where builders are confident
Several recipients of that letter told the AP said they are wary of following such advice because, they say, federal officials have previously been unclear on whether existing wage levels for other occupations would apply to weatherization work. They also reject the suggestion from federal officials they could simply issue back pay should the weatherization rates eventually be set at a higher wage, saying it could cause an administrative mess.
"They've been saying since April they'd have things straightened out and we'd be able to spend the money. Why we would we go forward now without the rules in place? So far nothing they've said ... has come to fruition," said Jim Crisp, executive director of the Michigan Community Action Agency Association.
NOW is the time to do thid weatherization work, as it will miss the point if its done in the Winter, and will be more difficult to do.
Stealing in Childhood Does Not a Criminal Make
Stealing in Childhood Does Not a Criminal Make
Lars Leetaru
By PERRI KLASS, M.D.
Published: August 10, 2009
By the time a worried parent asked me about a child who had stolen something, I had some answers — because I had already been a worried parent and had asked my own pediatrician.
Go to Well » In our house we had gone through the usual process, but I had no idea how usual it was. First the casual inquiry, one parent to another: Did you take any money out of my wallet? Then the little rat’s nest of bills accidentally discovered in the 7-year-old’s room. The worrying, the questioning, the self-doubt: How do we handle this? What does it mean? Does this tell us something we don’t want to know about our child’s character? About ourselves? Is something really wrong?
“Most children will take something sometime,” said Dr. Barbara Howard, cheerfully.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and some years after my own family crisis, I attended an educational talk she gave for pediatricians on behavior and development. Stealing was included matter of factly along with sleep problems, tantrums and all the rest.
A 2-year-old who takes something, she said, is probably going to be described as not being good at sharing, rather than as a thief, at least by a parent with a reasonable sense of child development. I see it, I want it, I take it, it’s mine.
Setting limits is a big part of taking good care of children this age. No, everything you want does not become yours, and sticky-fingered possession (these metaphors become the literal truth with small children) is not even one-tenth of the law.
But what about the somewhat older child, the 5- or 6- or 7-year-old, who clearly knows the rules and takes something from another child, from the classroom or even from a store — the child who makes some effort to hide the ill-gotten gains, and when confronted, perhaps flatly denies the crime?
This turns out, once again, to be extremely common. I had a 6-year-old patient once whose mother cried while spelling out the word shoplift in front of the daughter, who had walked out of a store with, I believe, a hair accessory. I see it, I want it, I take it.
But developmentally, there is something more complex going on.
“The next phase is a testing phase,” Dr. Howard said. “Kids are trying to find out what happens if you get caught, and one of the biggest problems is if you don’t catch them. They’re trying to find out what the rules are, and if nobody catches them and says, ‘That’s wrong, you have to give that back or pay for it,’ they don’t get a sense of being properly supervised.”
Dr. Martin T. Stein, another expert on behavior and development, and a professor of pediatrics at the University of California San Diego/Rady Children’s Hospital, used a favorite pediatrician’s phrase to talk about those 5- to 8-year-olds who steal: “It’s really a teachable moment,” he said.
It’s your moment as a parent to talk about standards and ethical behavior, and to make those concepts real by requiring that a child apologize and make restitution. “That’s really a great opportunity,” Dr. Stein said, “and it does give the message it’s not proper behavior and it’s not something we condone.”
More worrisome is a child who steals for less obviously acquisitive motives. A hair ornament that she imagines sparkling on her ponytail or another child’s toy that he envies — this kind of stealing, while it needs to be discussed and corrected, is less troubling than so-called symbolic stealing.
An angry child might steal someone else’s treasured possession and destroy it — flush a piece of Mom’s jewelry down the toilet, or incinerate a sibling’s special project. A child who is worried about school performance might steal something from the class superstar.
A child who keeps on taking things is a child with a problem, and as children get older, this all becomes much more serious. If a child in middle school is stealing money, you have to worry, already, about drugs and alcohol and the other influences in that child’s life.
And what about true antisocial behavior? A young child’s stealing is in no way the equivalent of setting fires or torturing animals or any of the other frightening prospects that flash across some parents’ minds in that first did-I-just-see-you-take-something-from-the-store moment. On the other hand, a pattern of stealing without any remorse can mark a serious problem — and that child needs help right away.
But the parents of most young children can be confident that stealing is a pretty routine behavior. “It might be unusual for a child to go through childhood without ever stealing anything, though the parent may not know,” Dr. Stein said.
Once you do know, Dr. Howard says, you shouldn’t do as some parents have, and rush out to organize a “scared straight” tour of the local correctional facilities to show your 7-year-old where a life of crime will lead.
“They need to be stopped, they need to pay it back and they need to apologize,” she said, “but they shouldn’t be taken to the county jail or treated as if they’re bound to be criminals forever.”
So the onus is on us — the parents — to strike the right balance. “Often the parent is embarrassed or humiliated, they don’t want to tell anybody that their child stole,” Dr. Howard said. “Doing too much or doing too little, either is bad.”
So when we found the cache of stolen cash, I did ask my pediatrician, who told me, kindly, that this was strictly routine. Take it seriously, he said, talk about consequences, extract an apology, but don’t act as if you think it means your child is a criminal.
Which is exactly what I said to the first parent who asked me this in the exam room, and to all the parents who came after.
Lars Leetaru
By PERRI KLASS, M.D.
Published: August 10, 2009
By the time a worried parent asked me about a child who had stolen something, I had some answers — because I had already been a worried parent and had asked my own pediatrician.
Go to Well » In our house we had gone through the usual process, but I had no idea how usual it was. First the casual inquiry, one parent to another: Did you take any money out of my wallet? Then the little rat’s nest of bills accidentally discovered in the 7-year-old’s room. The worrying, the questioning, the self-doubt: How do we handle this? What does it mean? Does this tell us something we don’t want to know about our child’s character? About ourselves? Is something really wrong?
“Most children will take something sometime,” said Dr. Barbara Howard, cheerfully.
Dr. Howard is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and some years after my own family crisis, I attended an educational talk she gave for pediatricians on behavior and development. Stealing was included matter of factly along with sleep problems, tantrums and all the rest.
A 2-year-old who takes something, she said, is probably going to be described as not being good at sharing, rather than as a thief, at least by a parent with a reasonable sense of child development. I see it, I want it, I take it, it’s mine.
Setting limits is a big part of taking good care of children this age. No, everything you want does not become yours, and sticky-fingered possession (these metaphors become the literal truth with small children) is not even one-tenth of the law.
But what about the somewhat older child, the 5- or 6- or 7-year-old, who clearly knows the rules and takes something from another child, from the classroom or even from a store — the child who makes some effort to hide the ill-gotten gains, and when confronted, perhaps flatly denies the crime?
This turns out, once again, to be extremely common. I had a 6-year-old patient once whose mother cried while spelling out the word shoplift in front of the daughter, who had walked out of a store with, I believe, a hair accessory. I see it, I want it, I take it.
But developmentally, there is something more complex going on.
“The next phase is a testing phase,” Dr. Howard said. “Kids are trying to find out what happens if you get caught, and one of the biggest problems is if you don’t catch them. They’re trying to find out what the rules are, and if nobody catches them and says, ‘That’s wrong, you have to give that back or pay for it,’ they don’t get a sense of being properly supervised.”
Dr. Martin T. Stein, another expert on behavior and development, and a professor of pediatrics at the University of California San Diego/Rady Children’s Hospital, used a favorite pediatrician’s phrase to talk about those 5- to 8-year-olds who steal: “It’s really a teachable moment,” he said.
It’s your moment as a parent to talk about standards and ethical behavior, and to make those concepts real by requiring that a child apologize and make restitution. “That’s really a great opportunity,” Dr. Stein said, “and it does give the message it’s not proper behavior and it’s not something we condone.”
More worrisome is a child who steals for less obviously acquisitive motives. A hair ornament that she imagines sparkling on her ponytail or another child’s toy that he envies — this kind of stealing, while it needs to be discussed and corrected, is less troubling than so-called symbolic stealing.
An angry child might steal someone else’s treasured possession and destroy it — flush a piece of Mom’s jewelry down the toilet, or incinerate a sibling’s special project. A child who is worried about school performance might steal something from the class superstar.
A child who keeps on taking things is a child with a problem, and as children get older, this all becomes much more serious. If a child in middle school is stealing money, you have to worry, already, about drugs and alcohol and the other influences in that child’s life.
And what about true antisocial behavior? A young child’s stealing is in no way the equivalent of setting fires or torturing animals or any of the other frightening prospects that flash across some parents’ minds in that first did-I-just-see-you-take-something-from-the-store moment. On the other hand, a pattern of stealing without any remorse can mark a serious problem — and that child needs help right away.
But the parents of most young children can be confident that stealing is a pretty routine behavior. “It might be unusual for a child to go through childhood without ever stealing anything, though the parent may not know,” Dr. Stein said.
Once you do know, Dr. Howard says, you shouldn’t do as some parents have, and rush out to organize a “scared straight” tour of the local correctional facilities to show your 7-year-old where a life of crime will lead.
“They need to be stopped, they need to pay it back and they need to apologize,” she said, “but they shouldn’t be taken to the county jail or treated as if they’re bound to be criminals forever.”
So the onus is on us — the parents — to strike the right balance. “Often the parent is embarrassed or humiliated, they don’t want to tell anybody that their child stole,” Dr. Howard said. “Doing too much or doing too little, either is bad.”
So when we found the cache of stolen cash, I did ask my pediatrician, who told me, kindly, that this was strictly routine. Take it seriously, he said, talk about consequences, extract an apology, but don’t act as if you think it means your child is a criminal.
Which is exactly what I said to the first parent who asked me this in the exam room, and to all the parents who came after.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)