Last May, I wrote a blog called “Grandmothers and The Fight Against Gun Violence,” which highlighted the important advocacy work seniors are doing to stem the tide of firearms violence. Since writing that blog, I have wondered about other issues that have spurred on senior advocacy throughout America. My first thought was there had to be seniors’ activism around global climate change. A threat to our planet as serious as climate change must have caused a spark in activism in the senior community, no?  Unsurprisingly I only had to perform a simple Google search to find countless articles and information regarding ways climate change has impacted older Americans and how they are fighting for a better environment.

So what is climate change?  The short answer: Climate change is an increase in the earth’s temperature which has caused sea levels to rise, ice masses to melt and highly concerning weather patterns to emerge. In addition, the U.S. Global Research Program concluded that human beings are the overwhelming cause of climate change, particularly because of the production of greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, these dramatic changes in the earth’s climate can lead to dire consequences for older Americans.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), climate change conditions like extreme heat, poor air quality and hurricanes can be particularly problematic for seniors. All too often, seniors suffer from heart conditions and diabetes, which can be exacerbated because of the heat. Increasing temperatures also cause ticks and mosquitoes to increase their geographical reach and remain for longer periods of time. Older adults with already-weakened immune systems are at greater risk of being bitten by ticks and mosquitoes if rising temperatures continue. In addition, during hurricanes, seniors often need to be evacuated, which causes obvious obstacles.  Around half of the people who died for reasons related to Hurricane Katrina were over the age of 75, with people over 65 accounting for half of the fatalities during Superstorm Sandy.  

However, seniors are taking action! Predictably, older Americans are not advocating for their own self-interest, but speaking up for policies that protect the planet for future generations, like their grandchildren. Groups of senior citizens like Elders Climate Action (ECA) are strongly advocating for policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This group, consisting of 3,300 people, advocates their positions to members of Congress, gets their message out through social media and has monthly calls regarding ECA’s priorities. Furthermore, in 2017, ECA visited Washington DC, taking their message directly to the offices of every member of Congress, and participated in the People’s Climate March.

Given climate change’s devastating impact on our planet, how seriously is this crisis being taken by our elected officials?  As is always the case, the answer is a mixed bag.  The House of Representatives has taken encouraging steps by establishing the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which will help raise public awareness about climate change by holding hearings and organizing fact-finding trips. Sadly, some federally elected officials don’t believe action is required. Many politicians in Washington, D.C., despite scientific facts, have purposefully turned a blind eye towards climate change’s impact on our planet.  
​
Like gun control, older Americans are picking up the slack for some of our elected officials, whose response on global climate change has been unacceptable. However, it’s nice to know we can count on the wisest people among us to lead the charge for a cleaner and better tomorrow.  

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.​​

By Adriana Camisar
 
The recent visit of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to Israel is a very important development.
 
For years, Brazil’s diplomacy took a rather hostile stance toward Israel. In fact, the government of Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva (2003-2011) got very close to the Iranian regime and, in 2010, even tried to prevent the United States and the European Union from sanctioning Iran for its nuclear development program. Brazil was a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council at the time and certainly helped Iran evade international sanctions, at least for a period of time.
 
Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s successor, distanced herself a bit from the Iranian regime but kept the anti-Israel stance of her predecessor, voting against Israel in virtually all international forums.
 
The traditional anti-Israel posture of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) responds in part to a third-worldist worldview, deeply rooted in Latin America, which has sought to keep distance from the United States, and therefore from one of its main allies, the state of Israel. This worldview is based on a somewhat simplistic understanding of Latin American history, according to which the United States is to blame for most of the region’s problems. This ideological position has been disastrous for the region since it generated a culture of victimization and the distancing of many Latin American governments from the democracies of the West in order to get close to dark regimes such as Iran, Russia and China, among others.
 
In the case of Brazil, Itamaraty's anti-Israel posture had also to do with the desire of the Brazilian career diplomats to get Brazil elected as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, in the highly improbable case that the council gets reformed to include new permanent members one day. To achieve this, these diplomats thought it would be necessary to get the votes of the countries that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But the truth is that such a reform of the U.N. Security Council would be impossible to achieve without the agreement of the United States government, which would in turn need to be ratified by the U.S. Congress, something extremely unlikely.
 
In any case, this anti-American and anti-Israel worldview seems to have received a major blow since Bolsonaro took power. His foreign minister, Ernesto Araujo, said in a recent tweet that the discriminatory treatment of Israel at the U.N. had been a Brazilian foreign policy tradition, and that this government is determined to break with this "spurious and unjust" tradition, in the same way it is breaking with the anti-American and third-worldist tradition that prevailed.
 
Bolsonaro's campaign promise to move the Brazilian Embassy to Jerusalem will apparently have to wait. But his recent announcement about the opening of a trade office in Jerusalem and his visit to the Western Wall in the company of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (an unprecedented gesture) are very strong signs of change.
 
The recent vote of Brazil at the U.N. Human Rights Council is another sign. For the first time in the history of the council, whose anti-Israel bias is both shameful and notorious, Brazil voted against two anti-Israel resolutions.
 
In November and December this year, Brazil's new, warmer relationship with Israel will be put to a test. This is so because two important resolutions will be re-introduced at the U.N. General Assembly. As every year, member states will decide if they want to renew the funding and mandate authorization of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights, the two entities that make up the most powerful anti-Israel propaganda apparatus that exists under the U.N. roof.
 
In addition to demonizing the state of Israel, in the name of the U.N., these entities promote the most extreme Palestinian positions as they question Israel’s very right to exist and advocate for the right of return of the more than five million people of Palestinian ancestry (who are still wrongly considered "refugees" by the U.N.) to the State of Israel. This radical stance is clearly against the two-state solution that the U.N. claims to support, as the mass migration of these people to Israel would mean the destruction of Israel as a majority-Jewish state and the eventual creation of one Palestinian state "from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea."
 
Brazil votes, year after year, in favor of the continued funding of these two entities, creating among the Palestinians the illusion that the U.N. will eventually grant them a state “from the river to the sea,” and directly discouraging genuine peace negotiations with Israel. A change in the way Brazil votes would undoubtedly be a breath of fresh air and would send a positive message not only to other countries in the region but also to the entire world.