When We All Vote is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that is on a mission to increase participation in every election and close the race and age voting gap by changing the culture around voting, harnessing grassroots energy, and through strategic partnerships to reach every American. Launched in 2018 by co-chairs Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monae, Chris Paul, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, When We All Vote is changing the culture around voting using a data-driven and multifaceted approach to increase participation in elections. In the months directly before the 2018 midterm elections, When We All Vote organized 2,500 local voter registration events across the country, engaged 200 million Americans online about the significance of voting, and texted nearly four million voters the resources to register and get out to vote. And we're just getting started. We're helping bring even more people into the voting process because when we all vote, we all do better.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose ahead of the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center, in John Lewis Plaza, on June 18, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais - Pool / Getty Images
America Shouldn't Need a Political Savior to Hold It Together
Jul 10, 2026
America is waiting for a political savior, but the problem is structural.
This dynamic was illustrated during two recent broadcast appearances by journalist Katy Tur. Discussing modern secessionist movements on June 15, 2026, Tur found optimism in a poll showing 54 percent of Americans still believe we share core values, and she later expressed hope that future leaders could reunite the country.
Yet, as this sixth essay in my ongoing series argues, no unifier can repair what is fundamentally a structural failure. The U.S. needs a path toward an American Union — a serious structural reform that preserves practical bonds while acknowledging that one national framework can no longer successfully govern us all.
In earlier essays, I argued that an American Union could allow Red America and Blue America to form two sovereign republics while preserving the practical bonds Americans still have every reason to keep: common defense, a shared currency, free movement, integrated markets, and a shared national inheritance.
The purpose is not to make Americans strangers to one another. It is to reduce the zero-sum struggle for control of one national government so Americans might have a better chance of living together peacefully, productively, and even affectionately.
Even the pollster who measured that 54 percent reached for the same hope as Tur, concluding that Americans are ready to come together and that the country is simply waiting for its leaders and institutions to do the same.
But waiting for leaders is the dependency, not the cure. A healthy governing system should not require a political savior — or a whole generation of them.
We should not need a uniquely benevolent, charismatic, emotionally intelligent president every four years to make the country governable. We should not need a Lincoln, a Roosevelt, a Reagan, or some future national healer just to persuade Americans that they still belong to the same political community.
And if our civic life depends on finding the rare leaders who can make half the country stop fearing the other half, the problem is not merely leadership — it is structural.
Effective political systems are supposed to reduce the need for heroic leadership. They are supposed to channel disagreement, lower the stakes of political defeat, protect basic rights, and allow citizens who disagree to keep living together without believing every election is a struggle for survival.
Our structure increasingly does the opposite. The president is expected to be head of government, head of state, cultural symbol, emergency manager, economic steward, commander-in-chief, national therapist, partisan warrior, and national unifier.
No human being can effectively do all of that for a country of more than 340 million people divided almost evenly over first governing principles.
The citizens of many developed democracies — like Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries — have serious debates over immigration, taxes, crime, energy, education, religion, regional identity, national culture, economic policy, and the proper role of government. But in those countries, leadership change does not always feel like regime change.
Parties lose power. Prime ministers resign. Coalitions collapse. Presidents become unpopular. Governments change direction. Yet the basic rules of political life remain intact. Elections are accepted. Power transfers. Courts, legislatures, civil services, local governments, and ordinary public administration continue to function. Citizens may dislike the new government, but they do not usually experience every election as a final battle over whether their way of life will remain legitimate.
The point is not that other countries are wiser, more virtuous, or less divided. They are not. Nor is the point that America should copy their policies. The point is that these other countries have enough agreement on the basic rules of governance that ordinary, unremarkable leaders can effectively govern.
A healthy system should be able to survive ineffective leaders, disappointing leaders, and leadership turnover. It should not require a once-in-a-generation political healer just to keep the country from falling into warring camps.
That is why the 54 percent figure should alarm us more than reassure us.
In that national NBC News survey, released in June, the question was posed as a choice: 54 percent said most Americans share the same core values but disagree about policies and issues, while 44 percent said most Americans have fundamentally different core values. The reassuring reading hangs entirely on that first option’s qualifier — that the disagreement is only “about policies and issues.”
But the American divide is not, at bottom, about tax rates or regulatory detail. It is about first principles — about whose moral vision the national government will enforce. A near-even split on whether Americans even share core values is a dangerously thin foundation for a country that asks one national government, one president, one Congress, one Supreme Court, and one national structure to settle the most contested moral and cultural questions for everyone.
Many Red Americans believe national institutions are controlled by hostile cultural, bureaucratic, educational, corporate, and media elites. Many Blue Americans believe democracy itself is endangered whenever those who reject election results gain power.
Many Red Americans believe federal power threatens their families, faith, communities, and freedoms. Many Blue Americans believe their rights, safety, dignity, and equal citizenship are endangered when national power falls to people hostile to them.
Each side sees the other not merely as wrong, but as dangerous, and no single leader or group of leaders can remedy that through force of personality or messaging.
A charismatic leader might temporarily calm the waters. But no president can create durable stability when the underlying governing structure keeps convincing each side that defeat is existential.
A country can survive fierce political disagreement when both sides believe the rules are fair and the stakes of losing are bounded. It is much harder to govern when large numbers of citizens believe losing means cheating, domination, or national ruin.
An American Union would not make Red America or Blue America harmonious. Both would still have factions, scandals, ideological fights, regional tensions, class divisions, ambitious politicians, and bad policies. But each would be easier to govern, because each would begin from a more coherent set of first principles and common values.
Red America could debate policy within a broadly shared commitment to local control, religious liberty, gun rights, lower taxes, stronger borders, public order, skepticism toward centralized bureaucracy, and greater room for traditional communities to govern themselves.
Blue America could debate policy within a broadly shared commitment to civil rights, environmental protection, gun regulation, public investment, broader social protections, and a more active national government.
The problem is that today, both visions are forced into one national governing structure, where each side must try to capture the same presidency, Congress, courts, and federal agencies in order to protect itself from the other. That is why elections feel existential.
And the problem is not that America has failed to find the perfect leader. The problem is that our structure asks any leader to do the impossible.
Under an American Union, neither Red America nor Blue America would need an extraordinary leader to make government function. Each would need capable people — as well as debate, compromise, accountability, restraint, and institutional trust.
Each would still argue, still stumble, still produce disappointing leaders. But neither would have to wait for a singular figure to persuade half of the country that the other half will not use the central government to destroy its way of life.
That is the practical promise of an American Union: not the elimination of political conflict, but conflict made governable, because each republic could debate policy within a more coherent governing settlement instead of carrying the impossible burden of settling every first principles dispute for the whole continent.
The American Union idea offers a new path: structural reform that preserves what Americans still have reason to share, while allowing democratic majorities to govern under arrangements that “We the People” can actually accept.
The goal is to reduce the political conditions that make Americans experience one another as existential threats.
The American founders did not design a system that depended on saints. They understood ambition, faction, pride, fear, and human weakness, and they tried to build institutions that could work despite those realities.
But they built a structure meant to channel ordinary faction — debates over tariffs, internal improvements, and regional commerce — not a totalizing, geographic divide in which both sides have come to doubt the legitimacy of the central government itself. That is the burden our system was never designed to carry, and no individual leader can carry it.
Katy Tur is right to worry about secessionist movements. They can be reckless, simplistic, and dangerous. But the answer cannot be to hope that the next generation of politicians will somehow make our divisions disappear.
America does not need a savior. It needs institutions strong enough that it no longer has to wait for one.
An American Union can do just that.
America Shouldn't Need a Political Savior to Hold It Together was originally published by The Western Journal and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
People hold signs as Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks during an election eve rally at Silo on June 22, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images
Facts Don’t Win Elections. Stories Do.
Jul 09, 2026
As a student, I was taught that politics is a contest of ideas. Experience has shown me otherwise.
In a recent New York Times interview with Ezra Klein, conservative activist Chris Rufo captured this reality succinctly: “While we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. Politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. Politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion much more than on the field of abstract argumentation.”
That conclusion may unsettle many Democrats. Yet, stripped of ideology, it aligns with decades of research in political psychology. Voters rarely decide by weighing policy papers or fact-checking speeches. They respond to stories about who they are, what threatens them, and where the country is headed.
This insight helps explain one of the Democratic Party’s central challenges in the Trump era. For years, Democrats have assumed elections are won through better evidence and more detailed plans. Donald Trump has operated differently. With the instincts of an entertainer, he leads with narrative on issues from immigration to national decline, treating facts as optional and subordinate to the story he wants to tell.
This is not a call for Democrats to abandon facts or embrace demagoguery. Quite the opposite. Facts are essential for governing. But campaigning is a different task. Governing demands evidence, expertise, and compromise. Campaigns require something more fundamental: a story that convinces people their lives can change.
Facts do not interpret themselves. A number can describe a problem, but it cannot tell voters why that problem matters, who is responsible, or what kind of future is possible. For that, politics requires narrative.
Trump’s political strength has never been policy detail. It has been narrative compression. “Build the wall,” “drain the swamp,” and “Make America Great Again” each reduced complex problems to a story voters could grasp instantly: someone took something from you, corrupt elites let it happen, and only a strong leader can restore what was lost.
These stories were often false, inflammatory, and cruel. But they were emotionally clear. They identified villains. They named victims. They promised restoration. They turned politics into a drama in which Trump alone could punish the guilty and redeem the nation.
Democrats too often answered those stories with fact-checks, program descriptions, and warnings about norms. Those responses were necessary, but they were not enough. A correction is not a counter-story. Telling voters that Trump is wrong does not automatically tell them what Democrats believe, whom they are fighting for, or what kind of country they want to build.
The recent Democratic primary in New York City offered a different example of the same underlying lesson. The candidates who broke through did not win because voters had studied every line of their platforms. They won because they connected policy to lived experience.
Affordability was not presented as a spreadsheet problem. It was a moral problem: people who teach the children, staff the hospitals, serve the food, clean the offices, and ride the trains can no longer afford to live in the city they sustain. That is a story. It gives policy emotional weight without abandoning reality.
Successful candidates make voters feel seen before asking them to accept a program. They connect public policy to private anxiety. They make government visible in the places where people actually live.
A democratic politics worthy of the name must be factual without being bloodless, emotional without being dishonest, and institutional without being abstract. That means changing how Democrats talk about the issues they already claim to care about. Democracy cannot be only about norms, courts, and constitutional principles, important as those are. It must also be about whether one person in the White House can disrupt a school, threaten a city’s budget, politicize the civil service, or turn public programs into instruments of personal power.
Economic policy cannot be only about growth rates, job numbers, or inflation statistics. It must be about whether people who work hard can afford a home, raise children, care for aging parents, and retire without fear. Education policy cannot be only about funding formulas or test scores. It must be about whether children are being prepared for freedom, citizenship, and a future larger than their parents’ anxieties.
The same applies to immigration, health care, climate, crime, and the cost of living. Democrats have policies on all of these issues. What they often lack is a common story that ties them together.
Trump’s story is dark but clear: the country has been stolen from you, and only I can take it back. Democrats need an answer that is just as emotionally intelligible but far more honest: the country belongs to all of us, and government should help people build lives of dignity, security, and possibility.
Rufo is right about one thing. Politics does not occur mainly on the field of abstract argument. It occurs where people feel fear, hope, anger, pride, resentment, and belonging. But facts still matter. They matter enormously. Facts alone do not win elections. Stories do. The party that learns to tell a truthful story about the lives people are actually living will have the best chance not only to win power, but to govern with purpose once it has it.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
person holding white and red box
Photo by Janine Robinson on Unsplash
The Gerrymandering Solution
Jul 09, 2026
The 250th anniversary of American independence should remind us what’s wrong with gerrymandering. Due to partisanship, however, it now not only persists but rachets tighter in a tit-for-tat cycle that threatens to strangle representative rule. There is a solution to gerrymandering, however, if only politicians will act.
Inspired by revolutionary Enlightenment Era ideals, the Declaration of Independence and the new state constitutions of 1776 call for representative rule. The people would be sovereign, they proclaimed, with governments drawing their just powers from the consent of the governed. Nothing of the sort had ever been tried on a large scale and the founders struggled with how to implement it. Everything turned on establishing a truly representative governing assembly for each newly independent colony or state.
“The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this representative assembly,” John Adams wrote in his 1776 Thoughts on Government essay, which guided the drafting of most of the new state constitution and influenced Thomas Jefferson’s thinking for the Declaration of Independence. Each legislative assembly, Adams wrote, “should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” All interests should be duly represented, he stressed. “Equal interest among the people should have equal interest in it,” he wrote. “Great care should be taken to effect this, and to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections.”
His words ring true today.
During the early republic, although legislative and congressional districts failed to fulfill the ideal of fully representing all interests, they generally avoided the worst effects of modern gerrymandering by following existing political boundaries, such as town and county lines. This approach at least insured regional representation.
As a practical matter, 19th century partisan leaders lacked the precise voting records and detailed maps to crack and pack districts like their 21st century counterparts. They did have some sense of how neighborhoods and communities voted however and used it to affect a 19th century version of gerrymandering by selectively creating multi-member districts for state legislative and federal congressional offices. For example, if a clear majority voters in a given city with four members of Congress typically voted for the same party, legislators could mandate that all four would be elected in one at-large district, with each voter casting four votes.
With the parties then picking candidates and many states using ballots that allowed voters to cast a single vote for all of a party’s candidates, at-large congressional and legislative districts virtually assured that the majority party’s candidates would sweep all the seats in a multi-member district even if they might lose in parts of it.
Five states carried this approach so far as to have all their congressional candidates run statewide, which assured that the majority party won every seat much as a winner-take-all approach for electing presidential electors gives all a state’s electoral votes to one candidate no matter how slim his majority. Both systems gained favor in the early 19th century as elections became more partisan. Pundits at the time calculated that under the winner-take-all system of congressional elections, one party could control of the U.S. House of Representatives with as little as 40% of the nationwide vote.
The solution to this flaw in majority rule was obvious at the time. While assigning initial control over the manner of electing members of Congress to the various states, the Constitution empowers Congress to impose uniform rules.
In a populist reform enacted at the height of the Progressive Era, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1911 mandating single-member districts for congressional elections. As an added deterrent to partisan gerrymandering, the Act also provided that these districts be “composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” With this, gerrymandering subsided for a season.
Faced with the prospect of losing control of the U.S. House in 1930 with the onset of the Great Depression, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929. In the hope of salvaging some Republican house seats, the new law repealed all of the anti-gerrymandering provisions imposed by the 1911 Act.
Multi-member districts returned in some states along with an increase in the number of less contiguous and compact single-member districts structured with a partisan edge. In 1967, a reform-minded Congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act, which re-enacted the mandate for single-member house districts but without reinstating a requirement that they be contiguous or compact. By this time, the Supreme Court had applied the principle of equal population to legislative apportionment but the 1967 Act left open the door for gerrymandering those equally populated districts and advances in computer technology had transformed that process from a rough art to a precise science. Although the Supreme Court upheld partisan gerrymandering in 2019, under the Constitution, Congress can still limit it for House elections.
Without resorting to the near-impossible task of amending the constitution, opponents of gerrymandering could call on congressional candidates to pledge their support for legislative reform and hold them to account if elected. At the very least, like the 1911 Act, that law should require contiguous, compact single-member districts. Beyond this, it could mandate that states use non-partisan commissions to draw district lines, proscribe partisan gerrymandering, and give voters the right to enforce its provisions in court. Individual states have adopted such reforms in the past but rescinded them when other states gerrymander.
Only uniform, national rules can stop gerrymandering. Fortunately, the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact such rules but, having often been elected in gerrymandered districts, its members must be willing to act.
Edward Larson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning legal historian, and William Cooper is an attorney and author. They cohost the podcast How Our Constitution Works And Why It Doesn't.
Keep ReadingShow less
Bulldozer compacting trash at a large landfill site.
Photo by Daniel Miksha on Unsplash
Inside the Trump Administration’s 2025 Reversal of Environmental Justice Executive Orders: Analysis and Future Prospects
Jul 09, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
The Evolution of Environmental Justice Policy in the United States
The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement in the United States emerged from civil rights struggles. The movement highlighted the disproportionate environmental burdens faced by communities of color and low-income populations. These concerns were later addressed on a larger scale by government agencies and executive policy.
Grassroots Beginnings of the Environmental Justice Movement
An early milestone in the movement was the 1968 Houston lawsuit challenging the discriminatory siting of waste facilities in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Dr. Robert Bullard’s 1982 study documented the concentration of landfills and incinerators in Black communities. That same year, the Warren County, North Carolina protests against the dumping of PCB-contaminated waste in a predominantly Black community brought national attention to environmental racism. Subsequent studies, including the 1983 U.S. Government Accountability Office report and the 1987 Toxic Waste and Race report, confirmed that hazardous waste facilities were disproportionately located in these communities. The movement gained further institutional direction during the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. The summit produced a foundational text and framework for the environmental justice movement: the Principles of Environmental Justice.
Policies of the 1990s and the Clinton Administration
Environmental Justice became institutionalized within federal policy in the 1990s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established an Environmental Equity Workgroup in 1990 and the Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) in 1993. A major policy milestone came in 1994, when President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12898: “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” directing federal agencies to address disproportionate environmental harms in minority and low-income communities.
Policies Under the Biden Administration and Early 2020s
The federal EJ framework was expanded under President Joe Biden’s administration. Executive Order 14008: “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” in 2021 and Executive Order 14096: “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,” in 2023 integrated EJ considerations across federal decision-making through a collaborative whole-of-government approach across government sectors.
President Trump’s 2025 Executive Orders Rescinding EJ Programs
In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14148: “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” Executive Order 14173: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and Executive Order 14151: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” These executive orders rescinded several prior Executive Orders and directed federal agencies to eliminate programs tied to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including environmental justice-related offices and programs.
Why Does the Trump Administration Say It Reversed These Policies?Eradicates “Radical and Wasteful Government Programs”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in a press release in April 2025 the immediate closure of an EJ case handled by its Civil Rights Division. The Department stated the action aligns with executive directives to eliminate what the administration describes as “radical and wasteful government programs” related to DEI, including EJ. According to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Department will no longer pursue EJ initiatives framed through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) approaches in part to prevent “expending taxpayer resources in accordance with the national interest, not arbitrary criteria.” This emphasized that the administration’s priority is to ensure government programs serve all Americans equally and that the taxpayer resources are allocated in line with what it defines as the national interest.
Enhances Merit-Based Opportunity in Government Contracting and Private Employment
The Trump administration asserts that the previously enacted EJ and DEI-related initiatives promoted discriminatory practices that conflicted with merit-based principles. According to the administration, certain EJ and DEI programs introduced preferential treatment based on race or other identity factors rather than individual qualifications. As part of the policy shift, the order rescinded affirmative action requirements in government contracting that have existed since 1965. The administration emphasizes that the changes are intended to restore equal treatment under the law and ensure that federal contracting and employment practices prioritize merit, fairness, and nondiscriminatory standards.
What Are the Implications and Critiques of Trump’s Executive Orders?
Public Health Impacts in Vulnerable Communities
Critics argue that the revocation ignores the long-documented history of environmental racism in the U.S. EJ scholars and advocates contend that the adverse health effects of environmental inequality will worsen, especially the effects of toxic and polluting industries on Indigenous, Black, and Latino communities’ health. Myrriah Gómez, Associate Professor at the University of New Mexico, criticized the move. Gomez argues that the administration’s actions demonstrate a failure to recognize the environmental dangers posed by toxic industries and instead prioritize economic interests over public health. Peggy Shepard, executive director and co-founder of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, noted that poor environmental conditions, including contaminated water and exposure to pollution, can exacerbate underlying health conditions. Shepard says this can lead to a “sicker population,” particularly in communities where polluting facilities are concentrated. Similarly, Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen issued a statement arguing that rolling back EJ initiatives could allow greater pollution in already overburdened communities, leading to increased rates of illnesses such as cancer, asthma, higher healthcare costs, and broader public health consequences.
Changes to EPA Enforcement Practices
Removing environmental justice considerations from federal enforcement practices affects how the EPA analyzes demographic and local environmental impacts. On March 16, 2025, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a directive stating that environmental justice considerations would no longer be criteria for EPA enforcement and compliance assurance work. The directive further restricts the use of race and socio-economic status as factors in compliance and enforcement decisions. The directive also indicated that EJScreen had been disabled and would not be used for any enforcement and compliance activity. EJScreen is the EPA’s primary EJ mapping platform. The tool provides critical data on local pollution burdens and demographic indicators. The tool allowed users to conduct EJ analysis for different pollutants and populations on federal, state, and city levels.
Disregards Long-standing Concerns from Environmental Justice Movement Advocates
Reversing prior EJ executive orders overlooks three decades of efforts to address environmental racism. Previous policies specifically guided federal agencies to address disproportionate environmental burdens faced by low-income communities and communities of color. Advocates contend that reversing these policies undermines progress made in confronting environmental racism and promoting equitable environmental protections. Shepard described the move as “turning the clock back on decades of work.” According to Shepard, removing these frameworks could have harmful consequences for disadvantaged communities, whose health and well-being are closely tied to policies that reduce exposure to pollution and address environmental inequities.
Loss of Tools to Identify Environmental Disparities
Critics argue that dismantling the DEI and EJ programs will likely enhance environmental inequalities and limit public tools to identify environmental inequalities. The administration also dismantled the Justice40 program, which aimed to allocate 40% of certain federal investments to disadvantaged communities. As part of Justice40, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) developed the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CJEST) to identify disadvantaged communities using indicators related to climate risk, public health, transportation, energy burden, and other socio-economic factors. As a result of rescinding Executive Order 14008, the CJEST was also removed from operation and is no longer available on any federal government website.
What Does This Mean for the Future of Environmental Justice?
The reversal signals a fundamental shift in the federal government’s role in addressing environmental inequities. Environmental justice practices may be considered less often in federal decision-making. Without an executive mandate requiring agencies to prioritize disproportionately burdened communities, environmental justice considerations are likely to become fragmented, discretionary, or deprioritized across federal agencies.
Inside the Trump Administration’s 2025 Reversal of Environmental Justice Executive Orders: Analysis and Future Prospects was first published by ACE and was republished with permission.
Judith Wanjallah, Environmental Policy Fellow and climate change expert at ACE.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More