Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A sound climate policy requires open minds on both sides

Windmills and oil pumps

West Texas produces fossil fuels and renewable energy.

RoschetzkyIstockPhoto/Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

The climate change debate has largely evolved in recent years from determining to what extent humans’ use of fossil fuels constitutes an existential threat, to now debating how quickly we should make the transition to renewable energy sources.

This debate has come into the forefront within the last two weeks as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent executive order by the Biden administration to ban imports of Russian oil.

Those who are skeptical ofthe imminent danger posed by fossil fuels argue that the higher oil prices and restricted supply areproof that we need to move ahead with the Keystone pipeline, drill more on federally owned land, and make permitting for new wells easier.

Those who believe that the impact of global warming is approaching catastrophic levels use the current situation to strengthen their argument that we must stop looking for new sources of fossil fuel now and increase our investment in renewable energy resources.

As so often happens in politics, both sides are relying on data they already have on hand to support the opinion they already have established, and neither side is asking the important questions required for effective policy making.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

To understand the complexity of the issue at hand we need to analyze how fast renewable energy sources are increasing and what it would cost to increase that rate. However, this won’t tell the entire story. We must also calculate how fast the demand for energy worldwide is increasing.

Unfortunately the current data doesn’t look good. The increase in available renewable energy is still lower than the rise in global energy demand overall. This means that even as we near consensus on the need to transition from fossil fuels toward green energy, we are currently getting further away from that transition.

One example is global power demand. The International Energy Agency shows substantial increases in electricity demand as do the IEA Projections. Global electricity demand is set to rebound strongly, jumping by close to 5 percent this year and by 4 percent in 2022, according to the IEA.

While the amount of electricity from renewables is increasing at a faster rate (6 percent in 2022), it is starting from a much smaller base so the use of fossil fuel for electricity is actually increasing.

The same is true of oil and gas use, and thus the essential question that we have to ask is how much has to be invested in renewable sources to increase the transition from fossil fuel.

Even the most optimistic experts realize the transition will take time. The Paris Climate Agreement doesn’t call for net zero emissions until 2050, and that goal requires a considerably accelerating investment in clean energy transition, to $4 trillion annually within the next seven years. This is about three times the current level.

Adding to the complexity of the issue is the shortage of key materials like nickel, cobalt and lithium needed for renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, China controls a high percentage of these essential metals. As reported by UBS in October “The [electric vehicle] supply chain is almost wholly dependent on China for upstream materials, and long-term power outages could result in shortages.”

Thus, there are no simple answers and we need leaders who depart from the rhetoric and explain the hard choices to the American public.

A new United Nations report notes the increasing risk of environmental catastrophes if humankind fails to reduce emissions of plant-heating gasses quickly. This is foreboding to say the least. However, we can’t look at this potential catastrophe in a vacuum and must measure the other catastrophes that face humankind if we do not have enough energy to run the economies of the world that provide food, shelter and all the necessities to a sustainable life.

Applying cost-benefit analysis certainly would be a step in the right direction. While this can be done on a macro national and global level, itcan also be done on a community level. Communities can have their own climate and disaster risk management analysis to determine how the effectiveness of alternative climate-related investments impact their community.

Whatever approach is chosen we must all strive to rid our mind of assumptions, beliefs and conclusions and instead focus on critical thinking.

Martin Luther King Jr. stated it well: “To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half-truths, prejudices, and propaganda.”

So think critically and by doing so the chances of producing good public policy will increase dramatically.

Read More

Young adults shopping for clothes

Members of Gen Z consume at an unsustainable rate: clothes, makeup, technology and every other imaginable product.

RyanJLane/Getty Images

Mass consumerism and the hypocrisy of Gen Z

Pruthi is a professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University, where she is a co-founder and director ofHonorsX, and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. Kharbanda is a senior at Presentation High School in San Jose, Calif.

California lawmakers recently approved two bills banning grocery and convenience stores statewide from offering customers reusable plastic bags. These bills are the next step in combating plastic waste, but what about the waste from mass consumerism that has come to pervade our lives?

Through the past decades, we have been trained to shop, purchase and consume products to solve our problems. While mending old clothing or refurbishing used goods have become things of the past, new products that are ubiquitously promoted are cramming our stores, screens, mailboxes and nearly every aspect of our lives.

Growing up in the digital age, Gen Z is the prime target for this consumerist culture. Their lives are catered toward finding flaws with what they currently own and buying the next best thing. In the process, our world lays waste, proving the disastrous effects of those spending habits.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less