Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Empower local government to develop environmental solutions

Litter on the street

The best solutions to fighting erosion damage and litter on streets combine the pocketbook of the federal government with the accountability and stewardship of local ones.

Nadieshda/Getty images

Patrohay, a graduate of Clemson University, has been awarded a Fulbright scholarship to research the effects of climate change on Arctic ecosystems in Tromsø, Norway. He worked with the American Conservation Coalition on this piece.


You don't have to look far to see examples of environmental degradation in America. Garbage litters our streets, erosion damages our land and waterways, and carbon emissions are an ever-present threat.

For decades, these issues have been viewed as a federal problem. But since the 1970s, conditions have stagnated despite increasing environmental regulations. Practically no tangible progress can be attributed to global emissions agreements either. Currently, 75 of the biggest emitters are predicted to decrease emissions by just 1 percent of 2010 levels by 2030. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change target? More than 45 percent.

The only true way to erect support for federal and international environmental initiatives is to start by raising a passion for the local environment in our towns, cities and states. Local communities must have a greater role in American environmental policy in order to achieve effective solutions. These communities know the consequences of environmental policies firsthand, have intimate knowledge of their unique environmental needs, and possess the ability to generate an organic consensus.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

One of the greatest impediments to meaningful change is a lack of political trust. But while a measly 20 percent of Americans trust the federal government, 72 percent trust their local governments. Local solutions can be tailored to a community's specific natural environment and allow residents, fed up with pollution or waste, to take matters into their own hands.

The best solutions combine the pocketbook of the federal government with the accountability and stewardship of local ones. Our environmental problems are too large to tackle alone. But it is critical that local governments retain their sovereignty and self-determination, and these powers — already long in decline — have come under a renewed threat from the Biden administration.

Costly federal environmental regulations that fail to actually solve anything disproportionately affect low-income Americans when their utility bills rise. For instance, a 2018 National Energy Assistance Survey revealed that 6 million low-income households needed federal assistance to pay utility bills and half forwent food or medical care for at least a day to pay them. Despite this, more than two-thirds of Americans say the government ought to do more to solve our pressing environmental problems.

Buried amongst President Biden's recent jobs plan is a pledge to federalize local zoning powers, representing a dangerous destruction of an important duty of state and local government. Without these powers of self-determination, the same politicians making costly, ineffective environmental regulations hurting everyday Americans would have full reign to chart future American environmental policy.

Studies show that zoning ordinances should be updated to encourage sustainable development, as older ordinances are simply too outdated to mention new eco-friendly technologies. But federal zoning regulations mandated without the input of localities risk erasing existing regulations that work and foster the illusion that individual environmental responsibility is unnecessary. As Edmund Burke once wrote, small communities have a "plastic" nature; they can implement sustainable zoning practices with a precision that the federal government can't match.

That's not to say the federal government ought to be excluded from environmental policy altogether. We must create a system in which the federal government builds incentive structures that allow states and localities to make informed decisions.

This idea has begun to catch on. The global organization Local Governments for Sustainability has enabled partnerships between over 2,500 local and regional governments across more than 125 countries, working to implement smart regulations. In the United States, the landmark Conservative Climate Caucus, started by Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah, will encourage partnerships with state and local governments, returning to the party's conservation roots. This opens the door for bipartisan environmental solutions that recognize policies work best when designed close to home.

These principles are at play in my own backyard too. The recent Lowcountry Lowline project, a green infrastructure initiative in Charleston, S.C., to manage stormwater, has gathered federal interest and opened the possibility of a $25 million stimulus from Washington.

So don't allow the Biden administration to wipe away state and local input on our zoning laws and environmental policy. Notify your congressional representatives about the consequences of erasing local self-determination. Help strengthen the underappreciated power that our communities have by joining local green initiatives too. Everyone can and should play a part in their own community.

Read More

Mother offering a glass of water to her toddler son.
vitapix/Getty Images

Water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay – how growing opposition threatens a 70-year-old health practice

Driving through downtown Dallas, you might see a striking banner hanging at the U-turn bridge, near the Walnut Hill exit on Central Expressway (US 75): “Stop Fluoridation!” Below it, other banners demand action and warn of supposed dangers.

It’s not the first time fluoride has been at the center of public debate.

Fluoride alternatives

For those who prefer to avoid fluoride, there are alternatives to consider. But they come with challenges.

Fluoride-free toothpaste is one option, but it is less effective at preventing cavities compared with fluoride-containing products. Calcium-based treatments, like hydroxyapatite toothpaste, are gaining popularity as a fluoride alternative, though research on their effectiveness is still limited.

Diet plays a crucial role too. Cutting back on sugary snacks and drinks can significantly reduce the risk of cavities. Incorporating foods like crunchy vegetables, cheese and yogurt into your diet can help promote oral health by stimulating saliva production and providing essential nutrients that strengthen tooth enamel.

However, these lifestyle changes require consistent effort and education – something not all people or communities have access to.

Community programs like dental sealant initiatives can also help, especially for children. Sealants are thin coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of teeth, preventing decay in high-risk areas. While effective, these programs are more resource-intensive and can’t replicate the broad, passive benefits of water fluoridation.

Ultimately, alternatives exist, but they place a greater burden on people and might not address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Should fluoridation be a personal choice?

The argument that water fluoridation takes away personal choice is one of the most persuasive stances against its use. Why not leave fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash, giving people the freedom to use it or not, some argue.

This perspective is understandable, but it overlooks the broader goals of public health. Fluoridation is like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. These are measures that prevent widespread health issues in a simple, cost-effective way. Such interventions aren’t about imposing choices; they’re about providing a baseline of protection for everyone.

Without fluoridated water, low-income communities would bear the brunt of increased dental disease. Children, in particular, would suffer more cavities, leading to pain, missed school days and costly treatments. Public health policies aim to prevent these outcomes while balancing individual freedoms with collective well-being.

For those who wish to avoid fluoride, alternatives like bottled or filtered water are available. At the same time, policymakers should continue to ensure that fluoridation levels are safe and effective, addressing concerns transparently to build trust.

As debates about fluoride continue, the main question is how to best protect everyone’s oral health. While removing fluoride might appeal to those valuing personal choice, it risks undoing decades of progress against tooth decay.

Whether through fluoridation or other methods, oral health remains a public health priority. Addressing it requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions that ensure equity, safety and community well-being.The Conversation

Noureldin is a clinical professor of cariology, prevention and restorative dentistry at Texas A&M University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep ReadingShow less
People holding a sign in Spanish

People hold a sign that translates to “Because the people save the people” at a Nov. 18 rally in Hartford, Connecticut. Immigrant rights advocates have called on state officials to reassure the public that the state is a welcoming place for immigrants.

Dave Wurtzel/Connecticut Public

Conn. immigrant rights advocates, officials brace for Trump’s plans

As concerns about Donald Trump’s re-election grow among Latino immigrants in Connecticut, state officials and advocacy groups are voicing their support as they prepare to combat his promises to carry out the largest deportation efforts in the country’s history.

Generations face the ‘unknown’

Talia Lopez is a sophomore at Connecticut State Tunxis and the daughter of a Mexican immigrant. She is one of many in her school who are fearful of what is to come when Trump takes office.

Keep ReadingShow less
Notre Dame at night

People gather to watch the reopening ceremony of the Notre Dame Cathedral on Dec. 7.

Telmo Pinto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cherishing our institutions: Notre Dame’s miraculous reopening

We witnessed a marvel in Paris this weekend.

When a devastating 2019 fire nearly brought Notre Dame Cathedral to the ground, President Emanuel Macron set the ostensibly impossible goal of restoring and reopening the 860-year-old Gothic masterpiece within five years. Restorations on that scale usually take decades. It took almost 200 years to complete the cathedral in the first place, starting in 1163 during the Middle Ages.

Could Macron’s audacious challenge — made while the building was still smoldering — be met?

Keep ReadingShow less
Two men sitting on a couch

Sen. Marco Rubio (left), President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be the next secretary of state, meets with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Dec. 3, in advance of Senate confirmation hearings.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Does it take six months on average for the Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Does it take six months on average for the US Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

Yes.

The average time the U.S. Senate takes to approve nominees to a president’s administration is more than six months.

The nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition reported that as of Nov. 11, 2024, the average number of days has more than doubled under presidents elected since the 1980s:

Keep ReadingShow less