THE EVOLUTION OF ETHNIC LABELS IN THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN GROUP IS TRACED AND THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK THAT GUIDES THIS EXPLORATORY STUDY IS PRESENTED. THE AUTHOR EXPLORES THE ROLE OF ONE POTENTIAL SOURCE OF INTERNAL SUPPORT FOR THE TERM: ETHNIC POLITICAL ELITES. HIS FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE IN-GROUP SOURCES OF POPULARIZATION OF THE HISPANIC LABEL, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELITES' WITHIN IDENTITY AND THAT OF THE LARGER GROUP THAT THEY PRESUME TO REPRESENT, AND THE ROLE OF ETHNIC ELITES VIS-A-VIS THE ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE DOMINANT SOCIETY.
This chapter provides an assessment of knowledge and practice on regional development and cooperation to achieve climate change mitigation. It will examine the regional trends and dimensions of the mitigation challenge. It will also analyze what role regional initiatives, both with a focus on climate change and in other domains such as trade, can play in addressing these mitigation challenges. The regional dimension of mitigation was not explicitly addressed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Its discussion of policies, instruments, and cooperative agreements (Working Group III AR4, Chapter 13) was focused primarily on the global and national level. However, mitigation challenges and opportunities differ significantly by region. This is particularly the case for the interaction between development / growth opportunities and mitigation policies, which are closely linked to resource endowments, the level of economic development, patterns of urbanization and industrialization, access to finance and technology, and - more broadly - the capacity to develop and implement various mitigation options. There are also modes of regional cooperation, ranging from regional initiatives focused specifically on climate change (such as the emissions trading scheme (ETS) of the European Union (EU)) to other forms of cooperation in the areas of trade, energy, or infrastructure, that could potentially provide a platform for delivering and implementing mitigation policies. These dimensions will be examined in this chapter. Specifically, this chapter will address the following questions: - Why is the regional level important for analyzing and achieving mitigation objectives? - What are the trends, challenges, and policy options for mitigation in different regions? - To what extent are there promising opportunities, existing examples, and barriers for leapfrogging in technologies and development strategies to low-carbon development paths for different regions? - What are the interlinkages between mitigation and adaptation at the regional level? - To what extent can regional initiatives and regional integration and cooperation promote an agenda of low-carbon climate-resilient development? What has been the record of such initiatives, and what are the barriers? Can they serve as a platform for further mitigation activities?
This chapter provides an assessment of knowledge and practice on regional development and cooperation to achieve climate change mitigation. It will examine the regional trends and dimensions of the mitigation challenge. It will also analyze what role regional initiatives, both with a focus on climate change and in other domains such as trade, can play in addressing these mitigation challenges. The regional dimension of mitigation was not explicitly addressed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Its discussion of policies, instruments, and cooperative agreements (Working Group III AR4, Chapter 13) was focused primarily on the global and national level. However, mitigation challenges and opportunities differ significantly by region. This is particularly the case for the interaction between development / growth opportunities and mitigation policies, which are closely linked to resource endowments, the level of economic development, patterns of urbanization and industrialization, access to finance and technology, and - more broadly - the capacity to develop and implement various mitigation options. There are also modes of regional cooperation, ranging from regional initiatives focused specifically on climate change (such as the emissions trading scheme (ETS) of the European Union (EU)) to other forms of cooperation in the areas of trade, energy, or infrastructure, that could potentially provide a platform for delivering and implementing mitigation policies. These dimensions will be examined in this chapter. Specifically, this chapter will address the following questions: - Why is the regional level important for analyzing and achieving mitigation objectives? - What are the trends, challenges, and policy options for mitigation in different regions? - To what extent are there promising opportunities, existing examples, and barriers for leapfrogging in technologies and development strategies to low-carbon development paths for different regions? - What are the interlinkages between mitigation and adaptation at the regional level? - To what extent can regional initiatives and regional integration and cooperation promote an agenda of low-carbon climate-resilient development? What has been the record of such initiatives, and what are the barriers? Can they serve as a platform for further mitigation activities?
In response to the 2013 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, the Future Circular Collider (FCC) study was launched, as an international collaboration hosted by CERN. This study covers a highest-luminosity high-energy lepton collider (FCC-ee) and an energy-frontier hadron collider (FCC-hh), which could, successively, be installed in the same 100 km tunnel. The scientific capabilities of the integrated FCC programme would serve the worldwide community throughout the 21st century. The FCC study also investigates an LHC energy upgrade, using FCC-hh technology. This document constitutes the second volume of the FCC Conceptual Design Report, devoted to the electron-positron collider FCC-ee. After summarizing the physics discovery opportunities, it presents the accelerator design, performance reach, a staged operation scenario, the underlying technologies, civil engineering, technical infrastructure, and an implementation plan. FCC-ee can be built with today's technology. Most of the FCC-ee infrastructure could be reused for FCC-hh. Combining concepts from past and present lepton colliders and adding a few novel elements, the FCC-ee design promises outstandingly high luminosity. This will make the FCC-ee a unique precision instrument to study the heaviest known particles (Z, W and H bosons and the top quark), offering great direct and indirect sensitivity to new physics. ; European Union [654305, 764879, 730871, 777563]; FP7 [312453] ; Open access article ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.