MentalHealthinAmerica” bySCHROEDERSTRIBLING
“TheStateof
How the West will be Won
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon spearheads decarbonization initiative to protect the environment and ensure grid stability.
“THERE IS A REASON WE CHERISH UTAH CULTURE.”
John Curtis discusses the values of his home state.
Plus - “It’s Time for the U.S. to Lead on Nuclear Energy” by ARMOND COHEN
AND - “George H.W. Bush: The Free Market Environmentalist” by MATTHEW E. KAHN
At Constellation, we are working hard to create a clean energy future.
We’re generating power that’s nearly 90% carbon-free with hydro, wind, solar and the nation’s largest, always-on, zero-emissions nuclear fleet.
And we produce around 10% of all clean, emission-free electricity in the country—50% more than any other company in America.
At a time when you’re hearing a lot about investments in clean energy, we’re actually generating it.
Constellation is proud to support the Ripon Society.
constellationenergy.com/poweron
4 The State of Mental Health in America
By Schroeder Stribling
With 23 percent of adults experiencing a mental illness in the past year and the number of suicides at an all time high, the conclusion is clear --- the United States is facing a crisis.
7 The Role of Congress in the FAFSA Failure
By Diane Auer Jones
This year’s failed roll-out of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid has generated much angst and uncertainty among students and institutions – and finger-pointing among pundits and policymakers.
9 The Founders’ Solution to Government Dysfunction
By Mark Meckler
With Americans fed up over how their tax dollars are being spent in Washington, momentum is building across the county to convene an Article V Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. Cover Story
How the West Will Be Won
By Mark Gordon
The Governor of Wyoming discusses the decarbonization initiative he is spearheading that is intended to protect the environment and ensure grid stability.
15 It’s Time for the U.S. to Lead on Nuclear Energy
By
Armond Cohen
Faced with global climate change, growing energy demand, and energy security challenges, world leaders understand that we need more energy solutions -- including nuclear.
“Ideas that matter,
Volume 58, Number 4
George H.W. Bush: The Free Market Environmentalist
By Matthew E. Kahn
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are looked back on as one of the success stories not only of U.S. environmental policy, but of the nation’s 41st President.
18 The Conservative Environmentalist
A conversation with Benji Backer
The founder of the American Conservation Coalition has written a book about the need to develop positive climate solutions and why doing so will help Republicans.
21
The Politics of Climate Change in Europe
By Susi Dennison
One of the main factors driving EU political leaders’ nervousness about prioritizing a climate agenda is a perception that the European public no longer supports it. Debate - Should Social Media Have a Warning Label?
No, there are greater threats to mental health to be addressed.
By Chris Ferguson
Yes, there are threats to be addressed on all platforms.
By Josh Golin
The Ripon Society
Jim Conzelman, President
A World Leader in In Vitro Diagnostics
We help make the world a healthier place
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens our economy and people’s lives, with an estimated 1.27 million deaths worldwide each year1. To win the battle against AMR, we need diagnostics.
bioMérieux knows diagnostics—and we’ve invested 75% of our R&D budget to innovation that fights against AMR.
Learn more about our commitment to making the world a healthier place:
1. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis, The Lancet 2022; S0140-6736(21)02724-0.
THE RIPON SOCIETY HONORARY CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
U.S. Senators:
Shelley Moore Capito – Senate Co-Chair
Todd Young – Senate Co-Chair
Marsha Blackburn
Bill Cassidy, M.D.
Susan M. Collins
Steve Daines
Joni Ernst
Deb Fischer
John Hoeven
Jerry Moran
Mike Rounds
Thom Tillis
Roger Wicker
U.S. Representatives:
Stephanie Bice – House Co-Chair
Larry Bucshon, M.D. – House Co-Chair
Frank Lucas – House Co-Chair
August Pfluger – House Co-Chair
Mike Kelly – Vice Chair
Dan Newhouse – Vice Chair
Ann Wagner – Vice Chair
Mark Amodei
Kelly Armstrong
Don Bacon
Troy Balderson
Andy Barr
Mike Bost
Vern Buchanan
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Ken Calvert
Kat Cammack
Mike Carey
Buddy Carter
Tom Cole
John Curtis
Tom Emmer
Ron Estes
Brian Fitzpatrick
Randy Feenstra
Scott Franklin
Andrew Garbarino
Tony Gonzales
Kay Granger
Garret Graves
Sam Graves
Kevin Hern
French Hill
Ashley Hinson
Bill Huizenga
Dusty Johnson
Dave Joyce
John Joyce, M.D.
Young Kim
Darin LaHood
Bob Latta
Laurel Lee
Julia Letlow
Brian Mast
Michael McCaul
Rich McCormick, M.D.
Carol Miller
John Moolenaar
Blake Moore
Greg Murphy, M.D.
Jay Obernolte
Guy Reschenthaler
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
María Elvira Salazar
Steve Scalise
Adrian Smith
Lloyd Smucker
Pete Stauber
Bryan Steil
Glenn “GT” Thompson
Mike Turner
David Valadao
Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M.
Steve Womack
Rudy Yakym
In this edition
With energy demand rising and record high temperatures being set around the world, the latest edition of The Ripon Forum examines the bipartisan effort being led by a Western Governor to reduce the amount of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere while at the same time pursuing an all-of-the-above energy approach.
The Governor is Mark Gordon of Wyoming. A Republican first elected in 2018, Gordon spent the past year serving as Chair of the Western Governor’s Association. In this role, he spearheaded the “Decarbonization of the West,” a year-long initiative that brought together public and private stakeholders to develop a strategy that addressed both the climate realities and energy demands facing the nation and world today.
Gordon discusses this initiative in an essay for this latest edition, writing that he launched it “to have an honest conversation about the social, environmental, and economic costs and potential benefits of various carbon capture, utilization, and storage practices. I believe an open, honest and thorough dialogue about these strategies is essential. Such discussions could lead to local, state and federal governments promoting environmentally sound, economically viable, and tenable paths to lower CO2 emissions while ensuring we continue to have sustainable, dispatchable energy for our nation.
“Importantly, this initiative focused on ways to innovate and build, not cut back or suppress, core industries … This initiative underscores the fact that oil and gas engineers, coal miners, agricultural producers, and industrial manufacturers are critical to meeting this challenge and continuing to lead American energy production into the future.”
According to Clean Air Task Force Executive Director Armond Cohen, another sector that will be critical to future energy production is nuclear. “Faced with global climate change, growing energy demand, and everincreasing energy security challenges,” Cohen writes, “world leaders from across the political spectrum increasingly understand that we need more energy solutions, not fewer. Nuclear energy stands out as a pragmatic option to diversify and strengthen our nation’s energy supply and meet these challenges.”
As Congress looks at ways to meet America’s energy and environmental challenges, University of Southern California professor Matthew E. Kahn examines a piece of legislation that should serve as a model for them to do just that. “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are looked back on as one of the success stories not only of U.S. environmental policy, but of the Administration of President George H.W. Bush,” Kahn writes. “President Bush and his economic and environmental advisors understood the importance of harnessing the power of incentives to cost-effectively achieve improvements in the nation’s air quality and water quality.”
Benji Backer wasn’t born when President Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments into law. But he is making a name for himself today as the founder of the American Conservation Coalition, an organization dedicated to mobilizing young conservatives around environmental action. Backer has a book out about his efforts. The Forum spoke with him about the book and his efforts, and why he believes the Republican Party could win the support of young voters by putting forward positive solutions to confront climate change.
The European Union has spent the past decade attempting to confront climate change. In the wake of recent protests by farmers against these efforts, Susi Dennison of the European Council on Foreign Relations examines the politics of climate change in the EU. “One of the main factors driving EU political leaders’ nervousness about a prioritization of a climate agenda now is a perception that the European public no longer backs it,” she writes.
In other essays, Schroeder Stribling, the President & CEO of Mental Health America, writes about the latest report her group recently published examining the state of mental health in the U.S. Former Under Secretary of Education Diane Auer Jones examines the failed roll-out of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and why Congress is partly to blame. Mark Meckler, the President of Convention of States Action, provides an update on the effort he is leading to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention.
Professor Chris Ferguson of Stetson University and Josh Golin, the Executive Director of FairPlay, square off in a debate over whether social media should carry a warning label. And in our latest Ripon Profile, Utah Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate John Curtis talks about the values of his home state and his top priorities should he be elected to serve in the Upper Chamber next year.
As always, we hope you enjoy this latest edition of The Ripon Forum, and encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments you may have.
Lou Zickar, Editor of The Ripon Forum louzickar@riponsociety.org
The State of Mental Health in America
The conclusion is clear — the U.S. is facing a crisis.
by SCHROEDER STRIBLING
Each year, Mental Health America publishes the State of Mental Health in America report, which ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia on 15 mental health access and prevalence measures according to the latest federal data. The conclusion is clear — the U.S. is in a mental health crisis. Americans continue to experience high rates of mental health and substance use conditions and are often unable to obtain care due to cost concerns, lack of coverage, and workforce shortages.
The good news is there are several proposed solutions with bipartisan support. These include addressing youth mental health through social media and early intervention, expanding the workforce (including peer support for young people and adults), and revamping payment incentives that are currently leading to siloed and inadequate care and exacerbating workforce shortages.
The Data
According to the latest data, 23 percent of adults experienced a mental illness in the past year, equivalent to nearly 60 million Americans. After slight decreases in suicide deaths in 2019 and 2020, the number of individuals who died by suicide in 2022 was the highest number ever recorded in the U.S.
(18 percent) in the U.S. had a substance use disorder in the past year. Of them, 77 percent who needed treatment did not receive it.
Cost and workforce shortages remain significant barriers to accessing mental health care. One in four adults with frequent mental distress could not see a doctor due to cost. In 2022, 10 percent of adults with a mental illness were uninsured and 64 percent of them reported that they did not have health insurance because they could not afford it. Even when people can afford care, they may not be able to access it. There are 320 people for every one mental health provider, and over half of counties lack any psychiatrist.
According to the latest data, 23 percent of adults experienced a mental illness in the past year, equivalent to nearly 60 million Americans.
The prevalence of behavioral health conditions and suicidal thinking among young people is particularly concerning. More than 10 percent of youth ages 12-17 are experiencing serious thoughts of suicide, nearly one in five is having at least one major depressive episode (MDE), and over half of them — nearly 3 million young people — are not receiving treatment.
Most individuals with substance use disorders are also not receiving treatment. Nearly one in five adults
Recommendations
Prevention and Early Intervention for Youth Mental Health: Making social media safer and more self-directed is critical for promoting youth mental health. According to a Gallup survey, young people are spending on average almost five hours per day on social media platforms. Congress and states should pass legislation to address the addictive nature and mental health harms presented by these platforms. More research and policies should focus on mitigating the harms, while promoting positive social connection and individual choice.
In addition, we need to allocate resources upstream . The Mental Health Block Grant, the largest flexible source of federal funding for local communities, is only available to children who are
(cont’d on page 6)
Schroeder Stribling
SOURCE: The State of Mental Health in America - https://mhanational.org/issues/state-mental-health-america
(Stribling, cont’d)
diagnosed as seriously emotionally disturbed and adults with serious mental illness. In 2022, only 0.67 percent of students were identified as having an emotional disturbance (ED) for an Individualized Education Program (IEP), so very few children are covered. Bipartisan legislation in the House (H.R. 7808) would allow 5 percent of the block grant resources to be used for evidence-based prevention and early intervention activities. This is a start, but more needs to be done to promote an upstream, preventive approach to care and support.
Workforce Expansion: Growing the workforce for youth peer support is another way to intervene earlier and provide the help and services that young people request. Several bills in Congress would support youth peer programs, including greater research investments, funding for school peer programs, and resources to expand youth peer program workforce development programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration.
individuals seeking care often encounter what are referred to as “ghost networks” (provider lists containing numerous inactive listings) and have a very difficult time finding in-network providers. Bipartisan legislation (H.R.7708 and S. 3430) would require greater transparency in Medicare Advantage networks and data on these provider networks should be part of the bonus system to fiscally incentivize and improve access to in-network care.
In addition, Congress should address problematic insurance practices that drive up the cost of care and out-of-network bills, such as step therapy (H.R. 2630 and S. 652) and prior authorization requirements. Rates need to be re-examined, especially for integrated behavioral health care to incentivize primary care practices for adults (H.R. 5819 and S.1378) and children to meet more of the nation’s needs for behavioral health care.
The number of individuals who died by suicide in 2022 was the highest number ever recorded in the U.S.
For adults, bipartisan, bicameral legislation (H.R. 6748 and S. 3498) would allow health and mental health centers to bill Medicare for peer support services. The addition of peers will improve engagement and coordination with other care providers and ensure that services are tailored to an individual’s goals.
Payment Incentives and Transparency: Finally, federal policy needs to reconsider current fiscal incentives and improve transparency. For example,
While the current state of mental health in America may be dim, these bipartisan proposals provide reason for hope. With coordinated and persistent commitment, we can intervene earlier, develop the provider workforce, and adequately incentivize an effective system of care. RF
Schroeder Stribling is the President and CEO of Mental Health America, the nation’s leading community-based nonprofit dedicated to addressing the needs of those living with mental illness and promoting the overall mental health of all. She is a lifelong social justice advocate with over 20 years of experience managing organizations focused on mental health, homelessness, poverty, and racial justice.
1965.“
The Role of Congress in the FAFSA Failure
…and what lawmakers should do now to fix things
by DIANE AUER JONES
This year’s failed roll-out of the “simplified” Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has generated a great deal of angst and uncertainty among students and institutions – and fingerpointing among pundits and policymakers as to who is to blame for the failure. To be sure, the current administration’s obsession with the illegal transfer of student loan obligations from borrowers to taxpayers and their hunger to rewrite regulations that were promulgated by consensus during the Donald J. Trump Administration, likely contributed to the failed launch.
But as a former acting Undersecretary of Education, I know that the underlying challenges run much deeper than that. The real problem is that in passing the Affordable Care Act, Congress transformed the Department of Education from a marginally competent regulatory and guarantee agency into one of the nation’s largest banks without ensuring that it acquired the tools, technologies, expertise, personnel, and resources needed to carry out that function responsibly. The failed FAFSA roll-out is merely a symptom of a much larger problem.
need for students and parents to complete their tax returns prior to April 15th, just so they could complete the FAFSA on time. These two changes were the most significant contributors to FAFSA simplification, and they were in place years prior to the recent FAFSA simplification legislation.
Diane Auer Jones
But let’s be honest about the fact that FAFSA simplification is a bit of a gimmick. For years, Senator Alexander (R-TN) trudged to the Senate floor the spooled computer paper that listed every possible question a student or parent might be asked when completing the legacy FAFSA application. This dog-and-pony show gave Senator Alexander an identity, but it was somewhat misleading since it was the rare student or parent who had to answer every question on the form. The Department had already accomplished the most important components of FAFSA simplification by transitioning from a paper application to a smart form and by transitioning from the use of prior year tax data to prior-prior year. By using the smart electronic form, most low-income students had to answer only a few questions to become eligible for full aid. The transition to “prior-prior” year data eliminated the
Congress transformed the Department of Education from a marginally competent regulatory and guarantee agency into one of the nation’s largest banks without ensuring that it acquired the tools, technologies, expertise, personnel, and resources needed.
It is true that the new FAFSA form contains fewer questions, but in some ways, the new form is more complicated than the old one because it requires parents to do more work in the background to enter an answer into the form. Whereas the old form may have asked more questions so that the Department could calculate the answer using its own algorithms, now parents are required to perform the calculations themselves and report only the final result. This makes the form shorter but the process more complicated and more error prone. The main challenge the Department faced in “simplifying FAFSA” is that the agency needed to connect its antiquated data systems to IRS’s more modern and secure data systems. Maintaining up-to-date and secure IT systems is extremely expensive and generally requires agencies to issue contracts to outside vendors. The contracting process is cumbersome, takes much too long, is subject to challenges by unsuccessful bidders, and usually attaches high fees to change orders – which are necessary when Congress keeps changing its mind about how it wants the agency to proceed. When congressional appropriations are late and the government is running under a continuing resolution, new contracts cannot generally be issued, so these efforts can be delayed by 6 months just because Congress can’t get its act together. In the case of FSA, the contracting process is made more difficult because many of its IT systems are so old that they are programmed in Cobol, and it is very difficult to find contractors who can work in that language. On top of all of that, the agency is required to select the lowest bidder for the contract or select the bidder that enables the agency
to meet its small business and diversity goals, which sometimes means that the agency cannot select the best contractor for the job. Aging IT systems were a major contributor to the failed FAFSA roll-out.
Ironically, Secretary DeVos recognized early in her tenure that FSA data systems needed to be upgraded, and she launched the NextGen Initiative to modernize these systems – or at least the user ends of them. But Congress did everything it could to derail this project. An accomplishment by Betsy DeVos did not play well amongst the elected officials determined to malign her character. DeVos was an experienced businesswoman who understood the importance of modern IT capabilities. Had Congress not interfered, it is possible that FSA would have been better prepared to connect its data systems to the IRS’s. But Congress did interfere. COVID-19 also played a role in the troubled roll out since IRS workers had not been issued laptop computers, which meant that when they were told to “work from home,” they could not log into their data systems.
The Department faced other challenges in implementing FAFSA simplification because the form is merely the front end of a much more complicated back-end processing system. If FAFSA simplification had simply eliminated questions from the form, I’m fairly certain that the new form could have been rolled out on time and without glitches. But Congress did not just eliminate questions from the form. Instead, it developed an entirely new needs analysis methodology which was not only complicated, but in many ways, nonsensical.
her income on her spouse’s child’s FAFSA form. There are lots of other oddities in the methodology that I won’t detail here. Importantly, each of these strange caveats adds complexity to the back-end system and opens the process up to new sources of vulnerability and error. FSA is experienced in creating functional electronic forms, but when they must connect those forms to back-end algorithms that make no sense and discriminate against students just because their parents are married, the challenges grow exponentially.
If Congress really wants to simplify the FAFSA, then it should eliminate all of the loopholes and caveats used to pick winners and losers among American students and parents, and simplify the needs analysis formula.
For example, Congress replaced the calculation of the much-hated estimated family contribution (EFC) with an even more opaque eligibility indicator called the Student Aid Index (SAI). Every document, data system, and algorithm that included the EFC had to be changed to reflect not just the new nomenclature, but a new way to convert the indicator to a dollar amount of aid eligibility. The new methodology also required the Department to develop different back-end algorithms so it could apply financial penalties to two-parent families. This makes no sense and illustrates the use of the federal student aid system to accomplish political maneuvering.
The new methodology also penalizes unmarried parents who are honest about cohabitating. If parents are married or are unmarried cohabitants, both incomes must be reported on the FAFSA. However, if parents are unmarried and live together but hide their cohabitation, then only one parent’s income is considered for needs analysis. This gives additional preferential treatment to single-parent households. Worse yet, while the new formula omits a non-custodial parent’s income from the needs analysis formula if they are not married to the student’s other parent, should that parent remarry, she must now report
For all of these reasons, I would suggest that if Congress is looking for someone to blame for the FAFSA simplification debacle, perhaps they should pull out some mirrors. There is no doubt that the flawed FAFSA release made it impossible for some students to select a college and enroll in a timely manner, which is a tragedy for hard-working, motivated, and well-prepared students. But to the extent that the failed FAFSA prevented under-prepared and under-motivated students from taking student loans, perhaps this dark cloud has a silver lining. Mostly, I hope that the failed roll-out increases public awareness of the outsized role that the Department of Education now plays as a primary financier of higher education, which gives the Department too many tools to meddle in the business of higher education. I also hope that this sheds light on the Department’s lack of capacity to fulfill its duties as a national/federal bank. If Congress really wants to simplify the FAFSA, then it should eliminate all of the loopholes and caveats used to pick winners and losers among American students and parents, and simplify the needs analysis formula. It should eliminate the marriage penalties that reward people for gaming the system, and it should provide sufficient resources through on-time appropriations bills so that agencies can hire the contractors they need to accomplish Herculean IT upgrades. Congress should consider moving the Federal Student Aid program to the Department of Treasury, where the agency’s internal access to income data and uber-secure IT systems eliminates the highest hurdle to simplification, which comes from the need to connect two agencies dissimilar data systems. Finally, Congress must establish an independent board of bankers and financial experts to hash out the details of the needs analysis methodology so that these decisions can be based on empirical data, economic theory and fiscal responsibility rather the political horse-trading of the legislative process. RF
Diane Auer Jones spent thirty years as an educator, scientist, administrator, and public policy official. Most recently she served as the acting under secretary of education at the U.S. Department of Education (Donald J. Trump Administration), where she had previously served as a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary for postsecondary education (George W. Bush Administration).
The Founders’ Solution to Government Dysfunction
Why momentum is building for a Convention of the States
by MARK MECKLER
What happens when the federal government cracks down on everyday Americans who oppose its agenda? What happens when, even after elections aimed at limiting centralized power, Washington, D.C. continues to overstep its bounds?
Today, we face the formidable task of addressing a federal authority that seems disconnected from the grassroots mechanisms of democracy and effecting change within our Constitutional Republic. Between “weaponized” institutions of justice and the seeming futility of elections, not to mention government-sponsored censorship schemes, the American people feel that they have no voice — and when the masses feel that they have no voice, drastic, radical measures are bound to be employed.
Frustration with the federal government is palpable; disillusionment is ubiquitous. This trend is illustrated by recent polling data, which shows that Congress’s disapproval rating has not dipped below 80 percent this year. Meanwhile, the president’s disapproval score recently climbed to a two-year high.
But the problem is much broader than that. Typically, in a robust Republic, the electorate would exercise its authority by voting out an unpopular administration or representative. However, the issues we face today run deeper than the failures and faults of any single corrupt politician and cannot be remedied merely by ousting them from office.
fundamentally flawed; instead, it highlights the brilliance and foresight of their labor. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” for example, “verily believed” that the “Government [would eventually] become oppressive.” In order to mitigate this scenario, he and his fellow delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention unanimously agreed to add a state-centric mode of amendment to Article V. By allowing the states, via an amendments convention, to “correct” the abuses of an out-of-control, “corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy,” the Founders ensured that, even if the ordinary means of representative change proved ineffectual, “We the People” would still possess the vehicle for driving reform.
Today, we face the formidable task of addressing a federal authority that seems disconnected from the grassroots mechanisms of democracy.
Indeed, we have tried that before — many times. From Ronald Reagan to the Tea Party movement to the present day, well-intentioned politicians have fallen short of their promises to reduce federal spending and growth. After decades of committed effort to rein in the administrative state, the wisdom of Reagan seems more pertinent than ever: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size,” he said. “Government programs, once launched, never disappear.”
This does not mean that the Founders’ work was
Those who contend that we “should not touch the Constitution,” appear not to have read George Washington’s advice on the subject. “If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,” he urged, “let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.” Nor have they consulted Alexander Hamilton’s expertise. In Federalist 85, Hamilton reassured his readers that they never needed to fear “the encroachments of the national authority” as long as they made use of the Article V convention method for amending the Constitution. In language strikingly similar to Reagan’s observation about the unwillingness of government to reduce itself in size, he argued that the concern that “persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of [their] authority” would prove “futile”— if the people employed Article V.
Of course, it would be both foolish and neglectful to disregard such insightful historical counsel, especially when we face the very crisis Article V was designed to alleviate. That’s why, in 2013, after the disappointment of the 2010 Tea Party mid-term election wave, Dr. Michael Farris and I co-founded
Mark Meckler
Convention of States Action, a nationwide grassroots army, to call the first-ever Article V convention.
As outlined inArticle V, the process entails 34 states submitting applications to Congress, compelling Congress to convene a stateled convention. In alignment with our resolution, the focus of this convention would be constrained to proposing amendments curbing federal spending, power, and terms of office. Subsequently, any amendment adopted by the convention would return to the state legislatures for threefourths ratification.
Rest assured, Convention of States has no intention of rewriting the Constitution — we mean only to reinforce the Founders’ original principles of limited government.
In Federalist 85, Hamilton reassured his readers that they never needed to fear “the encroachments of the national authority” as long as they made use of the Article V convention method for amending the Constitution.
Although our critics express concerns that an Article V convention might expose the Constitution to a wholesale rewrite, such apprehensions are ultimately unfounded. Any “rogue” amendment, deemed non-germane to the intended purpose of the convention, would be swiftly rejected. Moreover, the requirement for approval from 34 states ensures that even in the unlikely event that such a proposal made it out of the convention, it would never garner the broad, bipartisan support necessary for ratification.
Backed by Republican Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance and many other nationally recognized conservatives, including Sen. Rick Santorum, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, this movement boasts an even more powerful endorsement — bipartisan support from the grassroots, plus 19 states that have already passed the resolution. With millions of engaged citizens representing a spectrum of political beliefs, Convention of States amplifies the resounding demand for political reform: fed up with stagnation and inefficiency, we stand united to wrest back control from the federal government using the Founders’ solution that is as big as the problem. RF
Mark Meckler is president and co-founder of Convention of States Action.
We are proud to support The Ripon Society
Biogen is a leading global biotechnology company that has pioneered multiple breakthrough innovations. We embrace diverse perspectives to spark creativity, foster an inclusive culture to advance understanding and, ultimately, to better serve the patients who depend on our medicines.
How the West will be Won
A decarbonization initiative to protect the environment and ensure grid stability.
by MARK GORDON
Carbon capture is a hot topic of late, generating speculation, political debate, and coffee shop rumors across the nation.
Its proponents tout the potential to prevent and possibly remove gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, decarbonize essential industries, and create new economic opportunities. Its opponents say the technology is unproven, expensive, hampers industrial development, and even prevents the growth of plants.
As Chair of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), a bipartisan policy organization representing 20 western states and territories, I launched an initiative entitled “Decarbonizing the West” to have an honest conversation about the social, environmental, and economic costs and potential benefits of various carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) practices.
I believe an open, honest and thorough dialogue about these strategies is essential. Such discussions could lead to local,
state, and federal governments promoting environmentally sound, economically viable, and tenable paths to lower CO2 emissions while ensuring we continue to have sustainable, dispatchable energy for our nation.
Importantly, this initiative focused on ways to innovate and build, not cut back or suppress, core industries. When the narrative around decarbonization takes on a tone of vitriol — no matter the technology or industry it’s directed at — collaboration between the private sector and government to reduce CO2 and methane while maintaining a vibrant energy economy that includes fossil fuels is muddied. This initiative underscores the fact that oil and gas engineers, coal miners, agricultural producers, and industrial manufacturers are critical to meeting this challenge and continuing to lead American energy production into the future.
Leading in the energy sector does not include destroying our nation’s most productive power systems. But it also doesn’t ignore environmental and market realities that consumers across the world are seeking lower CO2 energy and products.
With this in mind, my year-long initiative convened stakeholders across the political spectrum and from around the world. It included four workshops hosted by a bipartisan slate of Governors (Jared Polis of Colorado, Brad Little of Idaho, Tina Kotek of Oregon, and me). It also included two webinars with industry experts from WSP (a multinational engineering and design firm), the North Dakota Industrial Commission, the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loans Program Office.
practices can be advanced without compromising our standard of living. Some of the more notable proposals focus on the need to increase federal incentives and reduce regulatory burdens for the full suite of carbon dioxide removal options.
Ultimately, I believe this report will serve as a roadmap to position the United States — and the West in particular — at the forefront of innovation for years to come. If implemented, the report’s recommendations can provide consistency, soundness, confidence, and opportunities for business investment today and in the future.
Make no mistake — as we heard time and again throughout the initiative – the potential for CCUS is not a futuristic pipe dream. The diversity of our western states presents economic opportunities as we collectively work toward lowering emissions and building a reliable, dispatchable energy grid.
Leading in the energy sector does not include destroying our nation’s most productive power systems. But it also doesn’t ignore environmental and market realities that consumers across the world are seeking lower CO2 energy and products.
CCUS technology can create new economic sectors to bolster the rural coal communities that have generated the nation’s energy for decades. It can convert carbon emissions into a base material for value-added products. It can supply a reliable source of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. It can supply agricultural producers and land managers with new revenue streams. Best of all, these technologies can be designed and manufactured right here in the U.S. and exported around the world.
Just look at what we’ve been able to do in Wyoming.
These convenings served as a perfect forum for state leaders to meet with federal representatives, industry experts, academics, nongovernmental organizations, and local stakeholders to share best practices and exchange critical information about emerging carbon management strategies.
Participants included the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, The University of Wyoming, Tri-State Generation, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Net Power, Carbon Capture Inc., Kawasaki Heavy Industries, GTI Energy, The Bipartisan Policy Center, The Walton Family Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, The Nature Conservancy, JP Morgan, Google, and many others.
The findings from the initiative were published in the Decarbonizing the West initiative report, which was released in June. The report includes recommendations for how CCUS
At the Integrated Test Center in Gillette, Wyoming, scientists from UCLA successfully injected carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant into concrete. This process not only eliminates emissions from the power plant, but also reduces the significant carbon footprint of developing concrete by up to 100 percent. The concrete blocks created using this technology cost no more to produce than traditional concrete and are now being used in the construction of several municipal projects across the state of Alabama.
Since opening in 1986, Exxon Mobil’s carbon capture facility at the Shute Creek Treating Facility in LaBarge, Wyoming has captured more carbon emissions than any facility in the world (over its lifetime, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis estimates that Shute Creek has captured up to 120 million metric tons of CO2).
Originally developed to produce natural gas and helium — which is an essential component for health care equipment and high tech products including fiber optics, semiconductors and materials for space travel — the facility captures the carbon emissions created from the development of renewable natural gas and helium and sells it for enhanced oil recovery.
As part of its 2030 emission reduction plans, ExxonMobil announced a $400 million expansion of the facility, which will increase its capacity to capture carbon by 1.2 million metric tons of CO2 each year for a total of roughly 8 million metric tons of CO2.
Using technology developed at the University of Wyoming’s Center for Biogenic Natural Gas Research, Cowboy Clean Fuels is developing a project in Johnson County, Wyoming that injects feed-grade sugar beet byproducts into nonproducing coal bed methane wells that naturally convert these byproducts into CO2 and methane. The CO2 is permanently stored underground while the methane is used for the development of low-carbon renewable natural gas (RNG), opening the door for the sale of both carbon dioxide removal credits and carbon-negative RNG.
Projects like these are positioning Wyoming as a leader in developing CO2 as a marketable product to support the existing energy sector, rather than suppressing it.
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies can create new economic sectors to bolster the rural coal communities that have generated the nation’s energy for decades.
In this time of political division, the Decarbonizing the West Initiative reflects the long-standing, bipartisan ethos of WGA. The process allowed participants — again, representing 20 member states and territories — to develop common sense policy recommendations that will enable the continued production of necessary energy, promote the protection of our environment and sustainability of the many rural communities that generate the nation’s power.
Not only will these projects collectively absorb millions of metric tons of CO2 each year, but they will also provide an opportunity to decarbonize hard-to-abate industries, create new jobs in these communities, and increase state tax revenues.
For more information about CCUS technologies and policy recommendations to advance the industry, read the Decarbonizing the West initiative report at westgov.org/ reports/article/decarbonizing-the-west-initiative-report. RF
Mark Gordon is the 33rd Governor of Wyoming and served as Chair of the Western Governors’ Association for the past year.
Cognizant— unlocking future potential for one million individuals around the globe
Cognizant’s Synapse initiative ushers in a new era, equipping and empowering people with the skills to thrive in the digital economy. By leveraging Cognizant’s expertise, and training individuals on cutting-edge technologies like generative AI, we’re advancing the workforce of the future.
We’re committed to providing workers with the skills needed to thrive in the digital age.
Copyright © 2024 Cognizant
It’s Time for the U.S. to Lead on Nuclear Energy
by ARMOND COHEN
What a difference a decade makes. In 2014, nuclear energy was the “also ran” of clean energy technologies: if not outright opposed, then considered marginal at best as a solution to climate and human development challenges. It was too expensive, too slow, and too unpopular.
That is no longer the case. Faced with global climate change, growing energy demand, and everincreasing energy security challenges, world leaders from across the political spectrum increasingly understand that we need more energy solutions, not fewer. Nuclear energy stands out as a pragmatic option to diversify and strengthen our nation’s energy supply and meet these challenges.
In the U.S., the recent bipartisan passage of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act highlights a growing consensus around nuclear energy’s promise at home. Large majorities of the public support not just the continuing operation of existing plants, but also the building of new ones.
The U.S. has a clear opportunity and imperative to leverage this political consensus to pass legislation that revitalizes its domestic nuclear energy industry, meets its own energy needs by effectively deploying nuclear energy, and demonstrates global leadership in clean energy innovation.
Brussels for the first-ever Nuclear Energy Summit at the headof-state level and signaled unprecedented interest in fostering international collaboration to scale nuclear energy. Multiple calls were made to develop innovative financial instruments to facilitate the financing of nuclear projects. And last year, more than 24 countries, including the U.S., joined the Net Zero Nuclear Initiative to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050, the first effort of its kind.
The U.S. has a lot of catching up to do, though. China and Russia are building more than half the new reactors in the world, but even they are not building at a pace that would triple global nuclear capacity to manage climate change. And many nations would prefer to work with the U.S. and other Western-aligned countries in building their nuclear infrastructure. By expanding its nuclear export capabilities, the U.S. would also be positioned to ensure safety norms and peaceful management of the technology.
U.S. leaders are on board. As noted, there are already bipartisan efforts in Congress to scale up U.S. nuclear energy. The passage of the ADVANCE Act will bolster the nation’s ability to expand its nuclear capacity by addressing current barriers to deploying nuclear energy technologies, supporting the preservation of existing nuclear capacity, and building capacity at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. has a lot of catching up to do. China and Russia are building more than half the new reactors in the world.
Nuclear energy is a proven energy source that already accounts for around 10 percent of electricity generation globally and nearly 20 percent domestically. It also has a remarkable safety record and is one of the few low-carbon technologies available to meet growing electricity demand around the clock. Beyond electricity production, nuclear energy can also be used in various applications, including industrial heat generation, district heating, water desalination, and clean hydrogen production – helpful for or decarbonizing hard-toreach sectors of the economy.
The appetite for nuclear energy deployment is growing internationally. In March, two dozen world leaders gathered in
While the ADVANCE Act is a welcome step forward, more work is needed to scale up U.S. nuclear energy. For its part, the American nuclear energy industry needs to focus on standardization and mass production, which is what drove down costs in the aviation and shipping industries in the last couple of decades, as well as in nuclear power in nations like South Korea, France, and, more recently, the UAE. This focus on commercial discipline will lower the risk of plant delivery and increase access to normal financial terms. Policymakers also need to create incentives and regulatory policies to enable nuclear energy to move from one-off projects to serial products. The Clean Air Task Force has joined other organizations like the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Energy Futures Initiative to put forward policy ideas that would push in this direction.
Nuclear energy is not a panacea but a practical tool, alongside renewables and other low-carbon energy sources, to manage a changing climate and global development and security challenges. It’s time for the U.S. to reengage and re-establish its historic leadership role in realizing the huge promise of this technology. RF
Armond Cohen is Executive Director of Clean Air Task Force.
Armond Cohen
GEORGE H.W. BUSH: The Free Market Environmentalist
by MATTHEW E. KAHN
Nearly 35 years after it was signed into law, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are looked back on as one of the success stories not only of U.S. environmental policy, but of the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. The legislation sought to strengthen the Clean Air Act of 1970 through a series of amendments designed to curb four significant threats to the environment — acid rain, urban smog, toxic air pollution, and the hole in the ozone layer. In each of these areas, the law has had its intended effect.
Since 1990, carbon monoxide pollution is down more than 75 percent, while nitrogen dioxide levels are down by more than half. Particulate pollution levels are down by more than 40 percent. Emissions of toxic chemicals such as benzene and mercury have declined by more than two-thirds, and lead levels in outdoor air have been reduced by more than 99 percent. One of the main causes of acid rain — sulfur dioxide pollution from power plants — has declined by more than 80 percent and is continuing to fall. And, according to NASA, the hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller each year.
Energy
What made this law such a success? Political observers will no doubt point to the fact that it was truly a bipartisan piece of legislation, with supermajority support in both Houses of Congress and on both sides of the aisle. Over 90 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans voted in favor of the plan. To economists, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were a success for a different reason. Simply put, the law was innovative public policy. President Bush and his economic and environmental advisors understood the importance of harnessing the power of incentives to cost-effectively achieve improvements in the nation’s air quality and water quality.
The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 are looked back on as
one of the success stories not only of U.S. environmental policy, but of the Administration of President George H.W. Bush.
One of the innovations of the Bush Administration was to rely on market mechanisms for reducing the nation’s acid rain problem. In the late 1980s, Midwest coal fired power plants were producing sulfur dioxide emissions and these emissions drifted around the nation causing downwind health problems and exacerbating the acid rain challenge. Rather than requiring a fixed engineering solution for each of these utilities, the market-based approach required the polluter to pay a market clearing price per ton of pollution produced. Under a “cap and trade” system, the government sets the maximum amount of tons of pollution that polluters can emit in total. These tons are then auctioned off to the highest bidder and a market clearing price per ton of emissions is established. Under these “rules of the game,” each electric utility now had an incentive to seek out cost effective strategies for reducing their emissions. Some might choose to burn cleaner coal or to install scrubbers or to accelerate the closing of an old coal fired power plant and to open up a cleaner natural gas power plant. The choice for how to achieve the pollution goal was left to the decision maker, the firm, who had the most information about the specifics. While some philosophers have argued that it is immoral to create pollution permit markets, free market environmentalists have argued that this approach allows society to achieve a given amount of environmental progress at the lowest possible cost. Intuitively, such a permit system allows those polluters who face a high cost for reducing their emissions to implicitly subcontract with another polluter who has a low cost of reducing emissions. The old “command and control” approach ignored the cost savings that could be achieved by
President Bush signs the Clean Air Act Amendments into law on Nov. 15, 1990, as EPA Administrator William Reilly (left) and
Secretary James Watkins look on.
rewarding those with an edge in pollution abatement.
The market approach to reducing emissions creates strong incentives for dynamic innovation. This learning approach helps to lower the long run costs of achieving a pollution goal and in a global economy helps developing nations to enjoy economic gains with less pollution production as they learn from our innovations. Engineering and applied science have made great progress in recent decades. Young scientists choose what subfield to enter. If the electric utility sector faces a higher price for releasing sulfur dioxide emissions, then it has a much greater incentive to invest in research projects that economize on these emissions. The Bush Administration’s emphasis on the market-based approach to achieving environmental progress rewarded environmental innovation and raised demand for environmental engineers. This has created an incentive for young people to enter the field. In this sense, the market approach to pollution reduction has stimulated experimentation and learning.
President Bush and his economic and environmental advisors understood the importance of harnessing the power of incentives to cost-effectively achieve improvements in the nation’s air quality and water quality.
Of course, no regulation offers a “free lunch.” Every regulation imposes costs. Some polluting power plants that purchased pollution permits passed on these costs by raising electricity prices. Higher industrial electricity prices did play a role in diminishing the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing with other nations such as China that continued to rely on cheap coal for power generation.
That said, there is a broad consensus in academic environmental economics that the Bush Administration’s Clean Air Act rules was an effective strategy for mitigating the costs of air pollution.
It was innovative public policy that had the overwhelming support of both political parties. That’s what made it a success, and a model of legislative achievement today. RF
Matthew E. Kahn is Provost Professor of Economics at the University of Southern California and Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The Conservative Environmentalist A conversation with Benji Backer
In the fall of 2016, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took to the debate floor to go head-to-head in what remains the most-watched political debate in American history, garnering 84 million viewers. One of those viewers was college student Benji Backer, a Wisconsin native attending the University of Washington, who noticed that there was a critical subject missing from the debate that affected each and every person on this planet – climate change.
At the time, Backer thought there was no place for conservative voices to effectively advocate for the environment. So following the debate, Backer set out to change that by founding the American Conservation Coalition (ACC), an organization whose mission is ”to build the conservative environmental movement” and which today counts more than 50,000 members across the country.
Backer has now written a book about this movement. Called The Conservative Environmentalist, the book not only includes Backer’s thoughts on the need to develop sound America-first climate solutions aimed at the future, but why doing so will help Republicans win support among young Americans today.
The Ripon Forum recently talked with Backer about his book, the future of the movement, and whether he believes concerns over climate change and the environment will resonate with voters when they cast their ballots in the election later this year.
RF: First off, what drove you to write this book?
Backer: I was on the top of a mountain in the Arctic Circle in Norway, and I had been approached by Penguin [Random House] to write this book. It was the summer of 2022, right before the midterm election. I felt although ACC had had a lot of impact, there was still this huge missing link in the education literature space, and that there needed to be a book written about this.
ACC is the biggest organization in the right-of- center space, and we have the most national prominence of any right-ofcenter environmental organization. I was like, ‘Well, if it’s not me who’s going to do it, then who is it?’ And I sent an email at the top of the mountain saying that I was in to do it.
RF: In your discussion of trade-offs in the book, you warn that the government has the ability to blindly over-invest in climate technologies. Are there any specific endeavors you see the industry pursuing that could be major wins for the environment and the taxpayer? And then are there any projects that you would recommend the government steer clear of?
what entrepreneurship and ingenuity can unveil. Everything in American history, especially around energy, has been subsidized, whether it’s by the government or by private investors. So, when things are getting off the ground, investment makes a lot of sense. I think where the problem starts is when something doesn’t work -- over the course of five, ten, fifteen years. It’s difficult for the government to back off of those programs.
I think we should stay clear of being unwilling to admit that we’re wrong about [some] things. I think it’s okay to kind of put your eggs in every basket and see what happens. We should be investing in new technology for nuclear, natural gas, solar wind, hydrogen, hydropower. Every other country that has economic prowess is doing that because they know that the future of energy is unknown.
Backer: I think it’s hard to say that the government should steer clear of anything right away, because you don’t know where technology is headed, and it’s impossible to predict
But if it’s proven that solar has hit a wall or nuclear has hit a wall or whatever, we shouldn’t be afraid to admit, ‘Hey, maybe this is something we should back off of.’ Then the tough question is, how do you back off of it? Well, you have to ramp it down. You can’t just remove it at the snap of a finger because it would have drastic negative consequences. I think because the government is not a for-profit business, it doesn’t have the incentive to undo the regulations, incentives, et cetera, where they are incorrect.
I also believe that we should be focusing on solutions that
don’t just revolve around energy production, but also revolve around restoring natural ecosystems, using conservation to protect the environment, active management to protect the environment.
RF: Another common theme in your book is local involvement and grassroots organizations. Is there a particular city that stands out to you that has really got it right? And, if so, what could the federal government learn from the city when creating federal environmental policy?
Backer: I think Scottsdale, Phoenix, and Tempe, Arizona are great examples of leadership on this issue because they’re forced to grapple with environmental challenges head-on. Even if climate change wasn’t real, water would [still] be a significant concern, and the efficiency standards that they have for water are remarkable. The way that they’ve figured out how to use water efficiently should be modeled with the rest of the world.
At the same time, they’re increasingly using a ton of solar because it’s very sunny there, but it’s not blanketing the landscapes of Arizona. Then at night, they use natural gas, nuclear, and coal, and that’s what has to happen.
Wyoming is the state that I think is doing the best job. Their governor, Mark Gordon, has unleashed an energy and environmental agenda that basically says, ‘If you want to be a part of the clean energy revolution, you should do it in my state.’
Backer: There are a couple of areas where there needs to be some more support from the government. One is transitioning communities that have been reliant on coal to other energy mechanisms. Wyoming, again, is a perfect example. There was this coal plant that was about to close, and this next-generation nuclear company went in and said, ‘We’re going to start our nuclear plant next to this coal plant so that those people can have jobs and be a part of the local economy. Then the town that they live in doesn’t have to go bankrupt.’
Those are the sort of things that I think the federal government should support, because there are a lot of really vulnerable Americans in the south and in the northeast and out west who are working in these industries. Let’s figure out how to keep those communities a part of the solution. I think it’s a really important place for the government to play a role.
Benji Backer
The conservative movement right now is very focused on this America-first mentality, and we should be Americafirst on climate. We should be leading with American technology and American ingenuity.
They’re leading in wind production. They’re leading in nuclear energy production. And they’re leading in carbon capture and storage facilities, not necessarily in today’s production numbers, but they’re welcoming the most amount of businesses, plants, and facilities in their state because they know that it’s good for their economy. It’s going to create good jobs, it’s going to boost their communities, and it’s windy there.
They’re using their local knowledge and their local geography to protect the environment. But also, they’re bringing tens of thousands of new jobs in every single year because of it.
RF: Are there any key elements of these plans that the federal government could draw from when implementing future climate policies and really reinvigorating clean energy production?
I also think one of the things that gets brought up a lot in D.C. is permitting reform. We have the ability to grow exponentially the energy production in this country to be cleaner and more efficient, but our government isn’t allowing it to happen. They’re spending ten years reviewing projects that should only take a couple of months. And by the time they actually review something, it’s not worth it anymore for companies. And so, no one wants to do business in the United States.
If you’re a foreign company and you see the rules the federal government has, you wouldn’t want to do business here. The most pro-climate thing the federal government could do is say, ‘We want your energy conservation, anything related to climate, we want your business here, and we’re going to make it as easy as possible for you to do that while also safeguarding the importance of some sensible regulation to make sure that we don’t destroy anything.’ Right now, the federal government is standing in its own way, and there are some regulations that are really harming our ability to do the right thing.
RF: What would you say has been the number one most effective tool provided by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to combat climate change? And then also do you think it could be replicated in future policy or strengthened?
Backer: I think that there are a lot of downsides to the IRA,
but there are a lot of upsides to the IRA too. One of the biggest upsides is that it has a focus on doing things in America and it’s trying to incentivize the production of solar, wind, nuclear, and electric vehicles in the United States. But I do think that those incentives are basically worthless if the government can’t get out of its own way.
The best thing for us to do is have an America focus, which is a very pro-conservative message, right? The conservative movement right now is very focused on this America-first mentality, and we should be America-first on climate. We should — and can — be leading with American technology and American ingenuity. Although imperfectly, I think the Inflation Reduction Actshows Democrats can be on board with that message, too.
RF: Final question – Election Day is just around the corner. How have you seen the GOP promote climate change to win over young environmental-forward voters, many of whom will be voting for a president for the first time?
Backer: Unfortunately, it is clear right now that there still is one party leader that is pro- climate and one that is not as outwardly spoken on it. Young people will definitely, if they care
about the environment and care about climate, be more attracted to the Democratic party – and that’s something that should be a wakeup call for Republicans.
What’s disappointing to me about that reality is that Republicans have led a lot over the last few years, and Donald Trump has an opportunity over the next few months to carve out his lane as being pro-America and pro-climate at the same time.
But because he hasn’t done that yet, it comes across to most people who don’t pay that close of attention to what bills are passing in Congress that the whole party doesn’t believe in climate change and the whole party doesn’t care about the environment. When young people see that, they want to run the other way – even if it’s not their top priority issue.
Republicans have helped pass some of the biggest bipartisan climate environmental policies of all time over the last five years. But no one knows about them. I do believe that the Republican party has come a long way, but the narrative hasn’t necessarily changed, so young people will by default be more attracted to the Democratic party on this issue. I would say there’s a significant chance that by the time the election rolls around, that we have two pro-climate, pro-environmental presidential candidates, and my goal is to get us there by November. RF
The Politics of Climate Change in Europe
by SUSI DENNISON
In the 2019 European Parliament elections, the centre right and centre left lost seats to a surge in support for the far right, Renew Europe, but also parties campaigning on a climate and environmental protection platform – the so-called Green Wave. This paved the way for the adoption of the European Climate Law in 2020, making the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions from the EU legally binding, and the European Green Deal (the package of measures to work towards this target) one of the signature pieces of the first Ursula von der Leyen Commission.
Despite the European People’s Party remaining the largest political party after the European Parliament Elections in summer 2024, and von der Leyen being voted in as European Commission President for a second term, continued implementation of the European Green Deal is now hanging in the balance. The strategic agenda agreed to by the EU Council for the next five years mentions climate change as a challenge, and talks about the green transition as part of the competitiveness agenda, but climate change will not be front and centre of what von der Leyen stands for in her second term.
The impacts of climate change are being felt more strongly than ever in Europe, and the competition for green tech domination is getting fiercer as the impacts of green industrial policy plans in China (Made in China 2025) and the U.S. (the Inflation Reduction Act and associated measures) are being felt by European businesses. Logically, one would assume that the green transition would have moved up – not down – the EU political agenda in the last five years. So what has changed?
a perception that the European public no longer backs it. One visible development has been the proliferation of agricultural protests gripping all parts of the EU over the past years, from Poland to Germany to the Netherlands to Italy to Spain. These protests have paralyzed motorway systems, causing havoc in capitals and drawing attention to the disparity in profits between small farmers and agri-industry.
The EU is in a very different political moment from 2019, and one of the main factors driving EU political leaders’ nervousness about a prioritization of a climate agenda now is a perception that the European public no longer backs it.
The EU is in a very different political moment from 2019, and one of the main factors driving EU political leaders’ nervousness about a prioritization of a climate agenda now is
A central message of the farmers has been about the burden that climate action is placing on the farming community. The agricultural lobby was a strong voice in raising concern about implementation of key elements of the European Green Deal, such as the Nature Restoration Law in the summer of 2023. But a second dimension of the farmers’ message is about the inability of European farmers to compete with farmers in other parts of the world because of what they perceive as overly generous terms of free trade deals offered by the EU. French President Macron leaned into this narrative in February 2024, immediately zeroing in on one of the leading stories on social media around the protest about the lower environmental and social standards required of farmers in Mercosur countries compared to EU farmers, and claiming without consultation with the Commission that Paris had told Brussels not to sign the trade agreement with Mercosur countries which had been over 20 years in the making.
Reading the farmers’ protest as a simple backlash against climate action is therefore a misunderstanding. Public opinion polls consistently show that Europeans – including farmers – are concerned about climate change and see it as a priority for the EU. As a recent paper by my ECFR colleagues Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard set out, the five crisis tribes that the EU has experienced in the past decades – climate, Covid-19,
Susi Dennison
the economy, immigration, and the war in Ukraine – have shaped different parts of the electorate in different ways. For France and Denmark, the climate crisis is the one that has most impacted their outlook.
Voters are concerned, though, about the costs of climate action not being evenly shared, and about Europeans’ livelihoods being impacted, as their businesses are constrained from competing by environmental standards imposed by their government. ECFR’s public opinion work shows that in every country surveyed except for Sweden and Denmark, more people would prioritise paying less in energy bills rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions if they had the choice because of their concern about the cost of living. A plurality in most countries also believed that their national leader wanted to increase energy prices to help with climate change above all other priorities. It appears that the belief that action must be taken on the climate crisis is being undermined by the lack of faith that European governments are sharing the
costs of the green transition evenly across the population.
In every country surveyed except for Sweden and Denmark, more people would prioritise paying less in energy bills rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions if they had the choice because of their concern about the cost of living.
The European story so far on retaining the permissive consensus for decarbonisation is a salutary one for other major powers on the necessary journey to net zero. The public accepts the case for climate action, and even the logic of first mover advantage in a world that is decarbonising. But unless an effective package of social measures to compensate homes and small businesses for the costs of the transition is put in place, and a clear narrative from progressive leaders on their commitment to the green transition – to provide business certainty – is maintained, this consensus can be put in jeopardy. Europe’s political leaders must meet this challenge over the coming months to ensure they do not veer off the bold course they have set themselves. RF
Susi Dennison is Senior Director for Strategy and Transformation at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Intuit believes everyone should have the opportunity to prosper.
Serving approximately 100 million customers worldwide with TurboTax, Credit Karma, QuickBooks, and Mailchimp, Intuit helps put more money in consumers’ and small businesses’ pockets, saving them time by eliminating work and ensuring they have confidence in every financial decision they make.
Southern Company is proud to announce the completion of Plant Vogtle, the largest generator of clean energy in the United States.
Our investment in carbon-free nuclear will benefit customers and communities for decades to come and help ensure we meet the energy needs of our growing economy. We’re honored to be supporters of The Ripon Society.
southerncompany.com
Should
Warning
Labels be Put on Social Media? No, there are greater threats to mental health to be addressed.
by CHRIS FERGUSON
During the past few years, the question of whether social media use explains rising mental health problems among American youth has exploded into public consciousness. Aside from numerous laws restricting youth access to such programs, the U.S. Surgeon General has proposed adding cigarette-style warning labels to social media apps. But is there any evidence such warning labels would be useful?
Data on Youth Mental Health
The best means of tracking mental health trends is with suicide data. This is because suicide data are less subject to confounds and unreliability common in other data such as selfreport. For instance, it is sometimes reported that teen self-injuries have risen over time, although new data suggests that this was due to a change in reporting standards rather than an actual trend.
Regarding suicide data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), we quickly see that a hyperfocus on teens, particularly teen girls, has obscured a larger picture for the United States. Suicides among teen girls have, indeed, risen over the last decade in the United States. Yet, they remain one of the least suicide committing groups. By contrast, suicides among either middle-aged men or young Native American men are about 3-5x more frequent and their absolute increase has been much greater. The graph below documents the rise in suicide across several groups from 2003 to 2020 using CDC data (see Chart 1 on page 27).
mented this with other CDC data. In this data, teen suicidal ideation is related to parental emotional and physical abuse, not social media use. Fortunately, this past year youth suicides declined without any social media regulation, but this wasn’t true for older adults.
If the explanation for teen suicide and mental health problems was social media, we’d expect to see similar problems in other countries with high technology adoption. However, we simply do not. For instance, across European countries, teen suicides fell slightly during the same period in which U.S. suicides rose (see Chart 2 on page 27).
Chris Ferguson
If the explanation for teen suicide and mental health problems was social media, we’d expect to see similar problems in other countries with high technology adoption.
This suggests that the U.S.’ problem with suicide is not a teen thing. Indeed, the obvious conclusion is that some teens are experiencing mental health problems because their parents are also experiencing mental health problems. Researcher Mike Males has docu-
Nor do we see any pattern in teen suicides across Anglophone countries (see Chart 3 on page 27).
Put simply, the U.S.’ problem with mental health is unique to the U.S. To the extent that teens are involved, the clearest explanation is that this is mainly a trickle-down effect from parents’ mental health problems. If we’re serious about youth mental health, we should start treating it as a family issue, not with useless warning labels on technology.
Data From Research Studies
As often happens when people worry about new technology (e.g., video games, television, the radio, comic books, rock music), we hear about some mythical body of scientific evidence pointing toward harmful causal effects. However, just as with these previous eras, it turns out that no such body of scientific evidence exists.
There are, indeed, many studies of social media effects, but many are of low quality and, as a group, they do not point toward clear evidence for harmful effects.
(cont’d on page 26)
Should Warning Labels be Put on Social Media? Yes, there are threats to be addressed on all platforms.
by JOSH GOLIN
Adults making sexual overtures. Drug dealers peddling fentanyl-laced pills. Influencers promoting eating disorders, and anonymous messengers encouraging suicide.
These are just a few of the dangers our kids are facing online. We are in a crisis where children are dying and families are being destroyed as a result of social media platforms’ deliberate design choices and deceptive business practices. A warning label from the surgeon general is a small but significant step that can help change that.
If you’re old enough, you can remember a time in this country when cigarette smoke was everywhere. Young people might find that hard to believe, however, given all that we know today about the dangers of tobacco, and the fact that smoking rates have dropped to historic lows. According to Gallup, in the mid-1950s, nearly half of US adults were smokers, but by 2022, the number was down to just 11%. The warning label on cigarette packs no doubt played a key role in that change — and helped save countless lives.
Cigarettes and social media are not a perfect comparison, but the companies that sell those dangerous items have shocking similarities. Like their peers in the tobacco industry, Big Tech firms have tweaked their formulas to make their product more addictive. They’ve paid for their own research, and for doctors and front groups to falsely claim their platforms are safe, even though it’s a lie.
worthy causes. Most adults also likely have a very different experience on social media than kids do.
Yet it would take an act of willful blindness to deny the dangers these apps expose our children to. Every week on Instagram, about 1 in 5 teens encounters self-harm content and one in eight say they receive unwanted sexual advances. Forty percent of teen girls say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies. It’s no wonder that, according to Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Anxious Generation,” depression in the social media era has skyrocketed 145% for girls and 161% for boys ages 12-17.
Josh Golin
We are in a crisis where children are dying and families are being destroyed as a result of social media platforms’ deliberate design choices and deceptive business practices.
It’s true that social media, unlike cigarettes, offers some benefits. Young people have used online platforms to make friends, explore their interests and get involved in
These statistics are not random. Online platforms are designed to addict young people at any cost. To maximize engagement, they send children down dangerous rabbit holes full of pro-eating disorder and pro-suicide content and implement features that make young people more vulnerable to cyberbullying. And they use design features like autoplay and infinite scroll to ensure that young people stay perpetually online.
These companies can’t claim to be surprised by the harm they’re inflicting. Arturo Béjar, a former senior engineer at Meta, testified to the Senate last year that he sent the company’s top brass data showing the negative impact of its platforms on children and teens. Those senior leaders, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, ignored him.
Béjar said tech companies can make their platforms safer for kids without losing significant revenue. Given their unwillingness to do so, a surgeon general’s warning is the least that can be done to protect kids online. Such a label would
(cont’d on page 26)
(Golin, cont’d)
allow children and families to make a better-informed decision about using social media — something the social media companies themselves are determined to prevent.
Yet as the surgeon general said, a warning label is not enough. We need legislation that will, as Dr. Murthy wrote, “prevent platforms from collecting sensitive data from children and … restrict the use of features like push notifications, autoplay and infinite scroll, which prey on developing brains and contribute to excessive use.”
A warning label from the surgeon general is a small but significant step that can help change that.
KOSA is closer to becoming law than any similar legislation over the last 25 years — it just passed the Senate by an astonishing 91-3 margin. A warning label from the surgeon general is a great first step to protecting kids on social media, but if we really want to keep our children safe, and our families whole, we need Congress to pass KOSA and force online platforms to change their dangerous and even deadly designs. And if Congress does its job, maybe we won’t even need warning labels in the future, because young people will finally have the social media experiences they deserve. RF
Thankfully, such a bill was just passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Senate. It’s called the Kids Online Safety Act, and it will impose a “duty of care” requiring online platforms to act in children’s best interests and protect them from dangerous design features. The legislation will also compel social media companies to proactively mitigate risks to children’s mental health and physical safety, and require them to give kids the strongest privacy and safety settings by default.
Josh Golin is Executive Director of Fairplay, which works to enhance children’s well-being by eliminating the exploitative and harmful business practices of marketers and Big Tech. Under Josh's leadership, Fairplay has forced major changes at YouTube, Instagram, and Amazon and launched ParentsSOS, an initiative of families who have lost their children to online harms and advocate for the Kids Online Safety Act.
(Ferguson, cont’d)
Most experiments of social media harms ask young adults (few involve teens) to restrict their social media use for a week or more, then see if they are happier. These studies have a pretty straightforward problem in that the hypotheses of these studies are pretty obvious. This can cause people to behave how they think the researchers want them to. Nonetheless, in a recent meta-analysis of these studies I conducted, across studies they provided no evidence for causal effects. Reducing social media time does not improve mental health.
What about correlation? Is there at least a predictive relationship between social media use and teen mental health? Once again, the answer is no. In several recent meta-analyses, the correlation between social media use and mental health is not much different from zero. At the risk of some inside baseball, sometimes scholars claim there is an effect by focusing on bivariate correlations. These tend to artificially inflate effect size estimates by failing to control for relevant confounding variables. For instance, when examining links between social media
and mental health, it is necessary to control for sex, preexisting mental health, family stress and abuse, etc. By failing to do so, some scholars promise more than they can deliver. This is a social-science wide problem, but it does affect social media research.
Moral Panic
If we’re serious about youth mental health, we should start treating it as a family issue, not with useless warning labels on technology.
Somehow, we have to learn from prior moral panics on everything from video games to comic books to rock music to the radio. In each case, some scholars and politicians claimed big harmful effects and proposed censorious legislation. We’ve entered a similar cycle with social media. It’s already clear that focusing on social media won’t help youth. Instead, we should be focused on troubled families, which appear to be the main source of our youth’s problems. RF
Chris Ferguson, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology at Stetson University. He has clinical experience particularly in working with offender and juvenile justice populations as well as conducting evaluations for child protective services.
Chart 2: Teen Suicide Rates Per Country 2011-2021
Chart 3: Youth Suicide Across Anglophone Countries
Name: John Curtis
Occupation: Representative, Utah’s Third Congressional District, Founder and Chair Emeritus of the Conservative Climate Caucus
Previous Positions held: Provo City Mayor (2010-2017), Owner, Action Target (1999-2010)
Book(s) you’re recommending to friends: Fossil Future by Alex Epstein is a great introduction to realistic, environmentally conscious energy policy. I’ve also recommended Winning Practices by Mark W. Bitz to friends of mine who are interested in learning more about the US’s current place in the global hierarchy.
What, or who, inspired you to run for public office? When I was a small business owner, we ran into a lot of difficulty with the city mayor. When there was an opportunity to run for that position, I took it. Serving as Mayor were some of the best years of my life and I look back on that time fondly. There are also a lot of people who I trust a lot. My wife Sue, and my family, have been my biggest driver. As you look to continue to represent the people of Utah in the Senate, what will be your top priorities in the upper chamber? Utah values are a priority for me. As someone who has watched most everyone misinterpret who I am, defining myself by Utah values felt like the closest I have come to accurately describing who I aspire to be. There is a reason we cherish Utah culture. These values are: pioneer traits, personal responsibility and taking care of others, and the belief in a higher being.
If someone could only see three natural wonders in Utah, which would you recommend? Arches National Park is, of course, the quintessential Utah landscape. Seeing it on our license plates doesn’t do it justice, so I highly recommend visiting in person. Similarly, you will not find anything like Zion National Park anywhere else in the world. My personal favorite, however, is Utah’s highest peak, King’s Peak. While it is breathtaking in its own right, it’s also very nostalgic for me. When I was 13 years old, my scoutmaster wrangled a group of rowdy boy scouts to give us what would be one of the most profound experiences of my life.
We’re building the 5G Economy, community by community.
America boasts the world’s leading 5G networks, covering more than 330 million Americans and counting. These networks are an economic engine, enabling companies, and applications and transforming industries such as healthcare, energy, transportation, logistics, and education. They also power new services like 5G home broadband, which is bringing broadband competition to communities across the country. The 5G Economy will create 4.5 million new jobs and generate $1.5 trillion in economic growth during this decade, according to Boston Consulting Group.
CTIA is proud to support the Ripon Society.
