Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Exploring the American landscape: A call for nonpartisan climate action

Exploring the American landscape: A call for nonpartisan climate action
Getty Images

Kristina Becvar is the Chief Operating Officer of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

The day after celebrating the 4th of July, I embarked on a road trip across the United States. In the past week, I've had the opportunity to travel nearly 4,000 miles across ten states, and the beauty that is the American landscape has not escaped my attention.


Starting from Chicago, I passed through Wisconsin, Minnesota, and most of South Dakota before hitting the "gateway to the west" and the transformative landscape changes that take shape around Badlands National Park. Venturing further into Wyoming and Montana, through the gem that is Yellowstone, and crossing into Idaho and Washington, the diversity of the landscape was matched only by the diversity of culture in the small towns where we stopped for food, gas, or just a break in the drive. I currently find myself in Humboldt County, Northern California, where my youngest studies forestry. As I write this from a lodge in a logging industry town adjacent to one of the most majestic of the remaining redwood forests, I am reminded of the profound impact of the work of Bridge Alliance members in fostering constructive dialogue and finding solutions for our nation's most pressing issues.

Here in Humboldt County, the delicate balance between economic prosperity and environmental conservation has long been a topic of intense debate. Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate, surpassing any other location on the West Coast. The realities of overfishing and increased wildfire risks cannot be ignored, while the livelihoods of local communities and the future of our natural heritage are at stake. However, what struck me most was the community's commitment to open, practical discussions about finding sustainable solutions. Their ability to transcend divisive politics is a blueprint for nationwide climate change action.

This week, I also had the privilege of attending a program presented by the Network for Responsible Public Policy on Climate Change Solutions, featuring esteemed guest speaker Bill McKibben. From his home in flood-ravaged Vermont, McKibben shed light on the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for transformative conversations. The recent record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events remind us of our collective responsibility to address climate change like never before. We are witnessing a planet unlike any in human history, demanding new and unprecedented conversations.

Amidst these challenges, there is reason for hope. A recent Pew research study revealed that 74 percent of Americans now support international efforts to combat climate change. It is heartening to see strong bipartisan support for alternative fuels, such as solar and wind energy generation, as well as utilizing federal public lands for sustainable solutions. Despite our differences, Americans agree more than we disagree, allowing us to find common ground and develop solutions that meet our collective needs. However, we must navigate the complexities of corporate interests and the politicization of environmental issues, which often hinder progress.

One area where this conflict is evident is in the realm of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment and business decisions. While many politicians advocate for the freedom of businesses to make decisions in their best interest, with the Supreme Court ruling last month that the First Amendment protects their right to do so, surrounded by much debate. But the same logic is not being extended to decisions that support innovation in environmental protection. Many states are passing laws restricting the use of ESG factors, despite the lack of evidence suggesting that American CEOs are seeking to harm shareholder value. Understanding the concerns of the next generation of consumers, companies are adapting their products and services towards decarbonization and natural ecosystem-friendly practices. By restricting free market investment and impeding business decisions based on company culture, politicians risk harming taxpayers and pensioners while hindering progress toward a sustainable future. The motives behind such political pushback warrant further scrutiny.

One factor contributing to this pushback is the influence of special interest groups that prioritize corporate profits over environmental health and safety. This interference impedes the necessary cultural shift toward environmental protection and leads to catastrophic incidents such as oil disasters and wildfires. While we may not always have perfect solutions or prevent individuals from prioritizing personal gain over collective health, we must hold our elected officials accountable for their appointments and ensure the highest bidder does not sway those responsible for evaluating government protections.

As Americans, we hold dear our autonomy and freedom, values that manifest in various ways. However, we must rise above our polarized culture and find common ground to address the climate crisis. The future of generations to come depends on our ability to bridge divides, collaborate, and prioritize the health and preservation of our environment.


Read More

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less