# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facts and myths about electric vehicles.

# data[].attributes.body
Overview of Federal Agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Overview of Federal Environmental Agencies in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. The EPA ensures that: all Americans are protected from significant risks to human h…

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This source goes over a study showing the general view about the government's action on climate change.  Despite the country being very polarized over climate change legislation and actions, the country overall does believe that climate change needs to be prevented and the environment needs to be fixed.  Even looking at the party split, Republicans have a lower yet still very similar support to Democrats for different environmental solutions.
Asses: Pew is again a very unbiased and reliable source, as they do their own research and surveys.  There is really no explanation made for their findings, they simply explaining what they found and go through every different aspect of collecting data.  Because of this, this source is good to use so that we can make our own conclusions.
Reflect: The general population shows that there is a desire and need to prevent climate change and save the environment.  Because of this, we need an explanation for why climate change legislation is so polarized.  One aspect, as we've seen from our sources, could be how the legislation is divided.  Rather than an overall national legislation, we might need more localized laws.  This is just one of many other solutions we could find and use as an argument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over half of Republicans and overwhelming shares of Democrats say they favor a range of initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article goes over how climate change effects different geographical regions and how that make effect the polarization surrounding climate change.  It is shown that many different factors are affected substantially more in the south by climate change than in the north.  By dividing climate change issues this way instead of looking at them through a bigger and broader picture, more conservative states may be more likely to support climate change.  This is in hopes that they will realize how badly they have been and will be affected by climate change, and that will influence them to think differently.  It could also affect regional legislation, as things may need to be tailored to different regions.
Asses: This is an unbiased and very information packed article.  Despite having so much detail and covering so many different parts, it is organized and easy to follow.  Reliable research sources and their data is used, explained, and broken down to find reasoning and a solution for climate change polarization.
Reflect: This ties to Matt's articles about the different levels of government and legislation.  This article is proving that climate change is much more complex than a national and international issue that can be fixed with one piece of legislation.  Different regions are affected by different aspects, hence why it is called climate change now and not global warming.  Part of our solution may be that climate change legislation needs to be made specifically for different states, so that everyone benefits and is protected in their own way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Mark Muro, David G. Victor, and Jacob Whiton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the geography of climate damage could make the politics less polarizing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if flip the frame from emissions to impacts when looking at the geography of climate change?

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article goes in depth on the Green New Deal, which has been a very controversial piece of climate change legislation in recent years.  It discusses pros and cons, origins of the deal, how legislation can support it, and concerns and criticisms that have come up because of it.  There are also many hyperlinks linked to other helpful and informative articles that further elaborate on element of the Green New Deal.
Asses: This article comes from a known reliable source (Gale), and is very unbiased.  It gives even amounts for both sides, such as pros and cons, criticisms and benefits, etc.  There is little to no harsh or intense language that would make the article lean to one side.  The only improvement that could be made is possibly some more direct quotes and statistics, but because the article is simply explaining what the Green New Deal is, I think it is still a strong source.
Reflect: This article could be very good in helping us be informed on this and use it as an example.  The Green New Deal has been extremely controversial in recent years due to polarization.  It could easily and strongly be used as an example to show what extent our government and politics should be involved in climate change, as its effects are a reality rather than a possibility.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints

Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article elaborates on the similarities and differences between political party opinions on climate change and climate change legislation.  Pew's research has shown a significant difference in party values when it comes to climate change legislation and solutions.  Liberal democrats support and conservative republicans heavily oppose ideas such as emission restrictions, international climate agreements, etc.  This goes hand in hand with many other differences, such as the parties' knowledge and understanding of climate change, as well as their desires for scientists to be a part of those decisions.
Asses: This is a useful source because it is virtually unbiased and has lots of good neutral information.  The information is almost all statistics and surveys that have been taken from every part of the US.  This leaves it completely unfiltered, which is good for us to be able to use it in any way we need in our argument.  It also allows us to pick a side of our argument with little to no bias or influence, strengthening our research and overall project.
Reflect: This article shows that climate change has been heavily polarized by politics. We are looking into what the government's role should be in reaching environmental goals, and this article gives us two different directions. We could argue that this polarization combined with the constantly changing government creates an unstable environment for climate change solutions, and therefore government should have limited involvement. We could also argue that this polarization allows for the continued balance that our government idolizes, and therefore it is necessary that the government is a part of it and that all party voices are represented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are polarized over the causes and cures of climate change and how much they trust climate scientists, but most support a role for scientists in climate policy and expanding solar and wind energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On April 22, as protesters swelled Earth Day rallies in U.S. cities and around the world, President Trump tweeted that he was "committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that economic growth enhances environmental protection. Jobs matter!" His message was eerily similar to assertions by governments in developing countries that environmental standards are less important than attracting jobs.

Indeed, over the last few decades many developing countries have adopted loose environmental standards to lure foreign firms to move production there. However, an emerging body of research shows that policies like this also bring heavy pollution to the host countries.

In a recent study, my co-author Xiaoyang Li and I found that a significant number of U.S. firms reduce their pollution at home by offshoring production to poor and less regulated countries. The greening of U.S. manufacturing over the past several decades may be partially caused by a growing flow of "brown" imports from poor countries.

A "jobs-first" policy can add to serious environmental challenges in the host country. For example, one recent study calculates that 17 to 36 percent of four major air pollutants emitted in China come from production for export. Among these export-related emissions, about 21 percent come from the production of goods for the United States.

Studies like this suggest that trade can potentially redistribute environmental footprints. This can happen via two pathways. One is for "dirty" firms in rich countries to stay out of the entire value chain that contains the polluting activities. In this case, some rich country customers will stop consuming the "dirty" products, which is good for the global environment. Others will keep consuming "dirty" products imported from poor and less regulated countries.

Another way is for firms in rich countries to keep selling the "dirty" products but redesign their production networks. They will offshore production (and jobs) in the "dirty" segment of the value chain to poor countries. They will then import the "dirty" unfinished products from poor countries for further domestic processing in the clean segment of the value chain.

Unfortunately, existing studies have not been able to tease apart these two pathways. To find out if some U.S. companies were taking the second route, we obtained data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency about trade, production and pollution for more than 8,000 U.S. firms with 18,000 U.S. plants.

We first found that of all goods imported by U.S. manufacturing firms (not wholesaler or retailers), the share produced in low-wage countries rose from 7 percent in 1992 to 23 percent in 2009. At the same time, toxic air emissions from manufacturing industries in the United States fell by more than half. Industries that experienced the greatest increase in imports from low-wage countries include printing, apparel and textile, furniture, and rubber and plastics. These industries also experienced some of the largest drops in air pollution in the United States.

Second, using this unprecedentedly detailed data, we obtained some interesting findings at the firm and plant level. We found that as U.S. firms imported more goods from low-wage countries, their plants released fewer toxic emissions on American soil. In addition, their U.S. plants shifted production to less-polluting industries, produced less waste, and spent less on pollution abatement. In sum, these firms were improving their own environmental performance by shifting to less-polluting segment of the value chain domestically and moving more-polluting activities overseas.

To our relief, we found that not all U.S. firms chose to offshore their pollution. In particular, firms that are more productive and invest more in R&D and brand equity offshore less pollution. These firms may find it less costly to renovate production technology domestically to comply with stringent environmental standards. They may also find it more rewarding to do so because consumers become more loyal to their brand for their socially responsible behavior at home.

U.S. companies that offshore pollution are not violating environmental laws either at home or in their host countries. Indeed, rebalancing their global production is a logical response to higher environmental compliance costs in the United States.

However, to the extent that U.S. firms can choose either to purchase cheap and "dirty-to-make" goods from low-wage countries or to produce them under stringent environmental standards at home, they are making a strategic decision about the private costs of production compared to the public (and international) costs of pollution. Companies that offshore pollution to less-regulated countries are taking advantage of those nations' lower environmental and labor standards and letting the host countries bear the associated social costs.

Unfortunately, it is not always easy to induce companies to adopt higher standards for their operations in developing countries. After Nike was first reported to have unsafe and abusive working conditions at its foreign plants, it took the company almost a decade to announce that it would raise wages, increase monitoring and adopt more stringent air quality standards in its factories overseas.

Similarly, Foxconn - a key supplier to Apple - has incurred heavy criticism over its labor practices in China. The company reportedly has improved its working conditions there, but it has also diversified into other low-wage nations where regulations are more lax, including Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia.

In a global market where companies compete fiercely across national boundaries, governments should coordinate closely to maintain a regulatory framework that incentivizes firms to undertake more socially responsible actions. Participating in trade agreements with strong environmental requirements, and in global coalitions such as those proposed at the United Nations Climate Change Conferences, is one way to coordinate. Unfortunately, some of the world's largest economies seem to be stepping in the opposite direction (https://theconversation.com/globalization-and-its-discontents-why-theres-a-backlash-and-how-it-needs-to-change-68800).

Jobs are important for both developed and developing countries. In the face of globalization, however, national leaders should focus more on jobs that are sustainable and do not come at the expense of the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When some US firms move production overseas, they also offshore their pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On April 22, as protesters swelled Earth Day rallies in U.S. cities and around the world, President Trump tweeted that he was "committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that economic growth enhances environmental protection. Jobs matter!"

# data[].attributes.body
The article focuses on the more broad topic that climate change is concerned with, which is public health. The article discusses various public health situations and the benefits and downfalls of significant government intervention. The article contains sections dedicated to environmental crises, while also considering other public health issues such as COVID. It lays out both pros and cons of significant government intervention, as well as both short term and long term effects. The article also outlines various government bodies such as the WHO, providing international examples.

This article will be useful as it outlines both benefits and issues that come from governmental involvement. As this is the core of our issue, this is a major aspect for us to focus on. Also, article's ability to look at both sides lends it credibility for being a non-biased yet simultaneously persuasive source, effective at providing research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Laws and regulations in the United States primarily aim to either serve the public interest, protect the rights of individuals, or combine those two objectives. These two goals, however, can come into conflict, particularly in discussions of public health measures. Unlike patient-based health care, public health involves determining the best policies for the population as a whole. Measures intended to protect public health may require people to sacrifice some of their personal freedom for the common good. For example, environmental regulations that protect air and water quality may inhibit a company's ability to generate maximum profits, and laws that restrict cigarette smoking to designated areas limit a smoker's choice of venue to protect nonsmokers. In both instances, the laws seek to manage public interest without entirely denying people an opportunity to pursue their own interests.

Public health agencies monitor threats and issue advisories to encourage responsible behavior. During public health crises, these recommendations may go beyond simple advisories. For example, the government may ban the import of certain meats or produce if health threats are detected. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which began to overwhelm the United States in 2020, spurred substantial debate over public health and personal freedom as governments and private businesses sought to institute policies, protocols, and regulations that would slow the spread of disease without violating people's rights or creating additional health hazards, such as those associated with economic downturns.

The role of the government in protecting public health remains contentious. Some people believe the government should intervene as little as possible to preserve personal freedom, while others believe the government should adopt a much more proactive role, such as providing universal health coverage and expanding existing regulations to prioritize human and environmental health. In creating policy, government officials must find ways to address public health needs without overly interfering with personal choice and free enterprise.

Pros and Cons of Government Intervention During Public Health Crises

Mandated public health measures have historically helped minimize the impact of infectious disease pandemics and have protected the public from harmful products and environmental health risks.

Through the sharing of resources and information, coordinated responses to public health crises can provide more efficient solutions than individual efforts.

Mandatory measures can more swiftly protect a community's overall health. For example, mandatory vaccine campaigns can help communities reach herd immunity faster, decreasing illness and death and potentially keeping a virus or bacteria from mutating and creating more deadly variants.

Regardless of threats to public health, personal health decisions should be left to individuals. The government should not be allowed to interfere.

By taking extraordinary measures during a public health crisis, government agencies may become more empowered to encroach on personal freedoms after the crisis has ended.

Expanded participation by the government creates opportunities for corrupt officials and other criminals to exploit the situation for personal gain at the expense of taxpayers.

Government's Role in Public Health

Local, state, and federal governments all play a role in public health. The primary objectives of public health programs are to ensure communities have necessary health care infrastructure, encourage healthy lifestyle choices, prevent disease spread, oversee emergency preparation and response, and evaluate communities' health needs. Additionally, many government agencies serve public health by enforcing environmental health standards and consumer protection regulations. For example, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are among the agencies ensuring food safety.

Supporters of government-funded health care contend that it provides the best way to achieve universal coverage, which in turn provides significant public health benefits. Opponents of such proposals, however, contend that individuals should have the right to choose how they care for their health, regardless of its impact on others. Smaller efforts to encourage better health habits, such as promoting exercise or taxing sugary beverages, have encountered pushback from critics who characterize such interventions as unwarranted violations of individual liberty.

After its introduction under President Barack Obama in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also referred to as Obamacare, attracted legal challenges for some provisions that critics characterized as encroachments on personal freedom. The law contained a requirement that all Americans acquire minimum essential health insurance coverage, commonly referred to as the individual mandate, which was challenged repeatedly. The individual mandate was ultimately eliminated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which removed the penalty for failing to acquire coverage in 2019. Other legislative efforts and court challenges have unsuccessfully sought to repeal and ultimately replace the law. In June 2021 the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that the ACA had contributed to at least twenty million formerly uninsured Americans receiving health coverage.

Provisions within the ACA also require employers with workforces of a certain size to provide health benefits to their workers, which some have characterized as unwelcome interference and a threat to small business viability. Further, the ACA requires insurance companies and employers that provide health coverage to cover contraceptive and other reproductive health costs. Several employers have successfully obtained exemptions from these requirements on religious grounds.

Everyday Public Health Measures

Public health measures intended to prolong lives and safeguard health affect many aspects of daily life in the United States, often in unnoticed ways. State and federal environmental protection agencies administer clean air and water programs. Most areas in the United States engage in community water fluoridation. The American Dental Association reports that adding fluoride to water reduces tooth decay in children and adults by more than 25 percent. Vehicle emissions and safety standards work to limit the risks to health and safety posed by cars and trucks, while driving laws, including speed limits and seat belt use requirements, place restrictions on personal choice in the interest of public health.

Government inspectors play an important role in managing public health by providing oversight to businesses, care facilities, building sites, and workplaces. A restaurant health inspector, for example, enforces codes meant to prevent consumers from consuming spoiled or contaminated food. Most patrons recognize the importance of restaurant regulations requiring employees to wash their hands, label and date food, and keep the work area free of rodents and pests. However, customers may view regulations that meats be cooked to a certain temperature or that prohibit specific foods entirely as overreach undermining their right to evaluate risks to their health themselves.

Governments and private organizations may place restrictions on certain items to limit the potential health damage they may cause. On state and federal levels, the government places age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and firearms, while placing strict limits or prohibitions on the possession and use of other items, such as narcotics and radioactive materials. Further, some items are prohibited from certain areas in the interest of public health and safety. For example, federal law restricts possession of a firearm at federal facilities, post offices, and airports and on aircraft. In 1990 Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act (GFSZA), which imposed penalties on anyone found with a firearm in a school zone. Gun rights supporters, however, have successfully challenged the GFSZA so that a person can knowingly carry a weapon into a school zone if they have received a state-issued concealed carry permit.

Critical Thinking Questions

What are some ways in which the government seeks to advance public health by restricting personal freedom? Do you think the shared benefits of these policies justify the limits placed on individuals?

In what ways, if any, do you think public health policy can help preserve personal freedom? Explain your answer.

Do you think the government should be able to require people to receive a vaccine or obtain a medical exemption under penalty of law? Why or why not?

Responding to Public Health Crises

Government agencies regularly monitor, research, and share information about risks to population health. These efforts include coordination with other countries as well as international groups like the World Health Organization (WHO). Public health officials use this data to make recommendations for both public policy and individual behavior. Voluntary and mandated public health measures have helped the United States minimize the impact of crises like disease pandemics, such as polio and influenza; avoid harmful consumer products like unsafe medicines and tainted food; and protect people from environmental health risks from ecological disasters, such as oil spills and contaminations at superfund sites.

In 2020 public health officials responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with broad recommendations aimed at slowing the spread of the infectious disease, particularly during the beginning of the pandemic when officials had limited information about the disease. These recommendations centered around ways to minimize contact between people, such as encouraging people to stay at home and to practice social distancing measures like maintaining physical distance. People who tested positive for the disease, exhibited symptoms, or had travelled outside of the country were instructed to quarantine for fourteen days. Government agencies issued both travel advisories and restrictions.

Forty-three states issued stay-at-home orders advising residents to isolate themselves except for essential activities and ordered nonessential businesses to close or have employees work remotely if possible. Business sectors generally considered essential for public health and infrastructure included first responders and healthcare; sanitation and public services; transportation and delivery; and food and agriculture. Businesses deemed nonessential included bars, gyms, bowling alleys, and casinos. Further, all fifty states ordered school closures, with many shifting to online instruction. These restrictions on movement and economic activity sparked concerns about civil liberties, leading to protests and legal challenges against such measures.

Some people believe that stay-at-home orders and other restrictions undermined their individual right to manage health risks. Further, the physical and mental health risks associated with economic slowdowns and education disruptions forced public health officials to balance the benefits of large-scale shutdowns against their costs. To counter the economic consequences of these drastic public health measures, federal and state governments adopted such policies as issuing eviction moratoriums, providing expanded unemployment benefits, issuing economic stimulus payments, and granting loans to protect small businesses.

Because COVID-19 can spread through the delivery of respiratory droplets when an infected person speaks, coughs, or sings, public health officials recommended that people adopt the practice of wearing facial coverings when out in public. Studies indicate that wearing a mask greatly reduces rates of COVID-19 infection, leading many to call for mask mandates at both the local and national level. Several state, local, and territorial governments ultimately issued mask mandates with requirements that varied between places. Further, many private businesses required employees, customers, or both to wear masks when doing business. Despite mounting evidence indicating the benefits, many people challenged these policies as encroachments on their personal freedom. Opposition to mask policies often led to heated arguments when store employees or others requested someone adhere to an established policy.

One of the most effective ways for a community to eradicate a communicable disease is to develop herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient portion of a population develops resistance to an infection, either from vaccination or previous infection, and the disease can no longer spread easily. Widespread vaccination can efficiently defend a population against disease outbreaks. Though vaccinations can carry some risks, those risks are generally minimal, especially when compared to the benefits provided.

Despite the demonstrated public and personal health benefits of vaccination, some people choose not to vaccinate and some vehemently oppose public inoculation campaigns. Misinformation drives much opposition to vaccines, creating vaccine hesitancy and panic based on easily disproven claims. However, some people reject vaccines for religious or political reasons. Religious prohibitions on the use of material harvested from human embryos or from certain animals, for example, have generated some opposition to certain vaccines. Opponents of mandatory vaccines and even government-supported campaigns have characterized such efforts as government overreach.

When COVID-19 vaccines began to receive emergency approval in December 2020, public health officials launched campaigns to distribute vaccines and urged people to get them as soon as possible. The availability of vaccines encouraged local and state governments to lift restrictions on large gatherings and fully reopen the economy. However, without widespread inoculation, dropping these measures threatened the progress already made in the fight against the disease. Proposals to require vaccinations for travelling, attending large events, and other activities attracted strong protest from people who feel vaccination mandates violate their personal freedoms.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laws and regulations in the United States primarily aim to either serve the public interest, protect the rights of individuals, or combine those two objectives. These two goals, however, can come into conflict, particularly in discussions of public health measures. Unlike patient-based health care, public health involves determining the best policies for the population as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
This article calls into question the effectiveness of various environmental regulation policies. It uses China as an example, by providing insight into their strict regulations that have led to both an energy shortage as well as environmental pollution. The article both summarizes China's policies and their effects, as well analyzing why it went wrong and how it can (possibly be fixed). In addition, it is filled with various external links that can be used to expand research in a specific area, for example, "Sustainable Development" is hyperlinked to a study on the growth of nation's sustainability plans and their biological effects.

This article provides critical analysis of China's environmental regulations, however, it certainly backs up its claims. It is certainly a reliable source, for a throng of reasons. It comes from UCONN's library database, as well as being written as a scientific paper (providing an abstract) and clearly citing sources (providing citations for all pieces of evidence as well as external hyperlinks). While it is written in an overly complex and sophisticated fashion, meaning it can be difficult to read at times, it can still be helpful to guide us toward possible solutions that we can discuss in our project. It also provides a real life example outside of the US for the effects environmental policy can have.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NetID Single Sign On - CAS - Central Authentication Service

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article discusses why climate change as a political and governmental issue is so difficult to solve.  Climate change is often put on the back burner of most American's priorities for a multitude of reasons--climate change is a complex issue, it's difficult to determine where the government has jurisdiction over the issue, and the issue requires collective action from the country as a whole, not just the government and leaders.  The last reason is most vital to climate change solutions.  People often don't feel affected by the short term effects of climate change, such as tornadoes, droughts, etc., because for right now they are short term.  Communities are affected, they rebuild, and they forget about the event rather than finding the root of the problem.  The article elaborates on this and many other problems with climate change actions.
Asses: This article is very neutral and includes strong and reliable source for its information.  The information used is also direct, such as statistics and polls for Pew and other sources, which means the information hasn't been altered in any distinct way.  It's also very organized, which will be helpful for when we are collecting all of our information and putting together an argument.
Reflect: This article is also really could for our argument because it helps elaborate on why taking action on climate change is so difficult.  By knowing why people turn away from taking action or why they are opposed to the idea of preventing climate change, we can create an argument for the role of the government that can help maximize population involvement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"We don't really worry about climate change because it's too overwhelming and we're already in too deep. It's like if you owe your bookie $1,000, you're like, 'OK, I've got to pay this dude back.' But if you owe your bookie $1 million dollars, you're like, 'I guess I'm just going to die.'" ⁠- Colin Jost, Saturday Night Live, 10/13/18
The above quote is from a Saturday Night Live skit on the weekend following release of a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report was one of the most dramatic ones yet, predicting that some of the most severe social and economic damage from the rise in global temperatures could come as soon at 2040. And yet, two comedians, Colin Jost and Michael Che, summed up the difficult (and perhaps impossible) politics of the issue in less than three minutes. You don't have to be a climate denier to be, in the end, indifferent to the issue.

As the climate crisis becomes more serious and more obvious, Americans remain resistant to decisive and comprehensive action on climate change. In "The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming," David Wallace-Wells paints a frightening picture of the coming environmental apocalypse. Whole parts of the globe will become too hot for human habitation and those left behind will die of heat. Diseases will increase and mutate. Food shortages will become chronic as we fail to move agriculture from one climate to another. Whole countries like Bangladesh and parts of other countries like Miami will be underwater. Shortages of fresh water will affect humans and agriculture. The oceans will die, the air will get dirtier. "But," as Wallace-Wells argues, "what lies between us and extinction is horrifying enough." ¹ That's because, as climate change takes its toll on Earth's physical planet, it will also cause social, economic, and political chaos as refugees flee areas that can no longer sustain them. If this prediction seems a bit extreme, all we have to do is look at recent weather events that keep breaking records to confront the possibility that the threat from climate change may indeed be existential.

public opinion on the climate crisis

Yet, in spite of the evidence at hand, climate change remains the toughest, most intractable political issue we, as a society, have ever faced. This is not to say that there hasn't been progress. In the United States, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions has held steady since 1990-even though our economy and our population has grown. ² But globally, greenhouse gases have increased since then, bringing humanity very close to the dangerous levels of global warming that were predicted. ³ As scientific evidence about the causes of climate change has mounted and as a consensus has evolved in the scientific community, the public has remained divided and large, important parts of the political class have been indifferent. For instance, although 2017 was a year of 16 different billion-dollar natural disasters, ⁴ according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the percentage of voters who were "very concerned" about climate change stayed within the 40% range-where it has been rather stubbornly stuck for the past two years. ⁵ The following chart shows Gallup public opinion polling for the past two decades. ⁶ During this period, but especially in the most recent decade, about a third to almost half of the public believes that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated.

Dramatic and unprecedented natural disasters have had little effect on the public. Following blizzards and an unusually frigid winter in 2015, only 37% of Americans said climate change would pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes. ⁷ After Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma in 2017, concern about climate change increased by 7 points among Republicans and 2 points among Democrats. ⁸ But in the next year, an August 2018 poll taken shortly after the California wildfires showed concern among Republicans down to 44% and up to 79% among Democrats. ⁹ In a YouGov poll in the summer of 2019-during record heat waves in the U.S. and Europe-only 42% of the public said that they were very concerned and only 22% of Republicans said that they were" very concerned about climate change." ¹⁰

If natural disasters don't affect attitudes toward climate change, partisanship does. The following chart from Pew Research shows the gulf that exists between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. ¹¹

The partisan divide began in the late 1990s and has increased over time. In 1997, nearly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans said that the effects of global warming have already begun. Ten years later, the gap was 34%: 76% of Democrats said the effects had already begun, and only 42% of Republicans agreed.

Republican resistance on this issue is one but not the only reason why, in the face of mounting evidence, the public remains lukewarm on this existential issue. The dire warnings, the scientific consensus, and the death toll from unprecedented climate events have failed to move the public very much. For two years now, the number of Americans who say they are "very concerned" about climate change fails to reach 50%, as a look at polling from Quinnipiac illustrates. ¹²

An even more telling piece of evidence on public indifference to climate change comes from 30 years of open-ended polling conducted by Gallup. Open-ended polling is especially interesting since it elicits an unprompted response from the individual. Between 1989 and 2019, Gallup has asked "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Jobs, the economy, and health care are often at the top of the list. "Environment/pollution" is not often mentioned. In fact, over a 30-year period, it was mentioned by anywhere from less than 0.5% to 8% of the public. In the most recent 2019 poll (August), "the government/poor leadership" was mentioned by 22% of the public, and "immigration" by 18%. "Environment/pollution/climate change" garnered only 3% of the public. And in some earlier polls, climate change is not even mentioned by a significant portion of the public (although people could be including that within the term environment.) ¹³

Why can't we get our heads around this?

Given the severity of the climate crisis and the potential for existential damage to the human race and planet, the lack of intensity around the issue is simultaneously incomprehensible and totally understandable. So let's look at the latter. The explanations fall into at least four categories: complexity; jurisdiction and accountability; collective action and trust; and imagination.

Complexity

Complexity is the death knell of many modern public policy problems and solutions. And complexity is inherent in climate change. The causes of global warming are varied, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. As the climate warms, it affects glaciers, sea levels, water supply, rainfall, evaporation, wind, and a host of other natural phenomenon that affect weather patterns. Unlike an earlier generation of environmental problems, it is hard to see the connections between coal plants in one part of the world and hurricanes in another. In contrast, when the water in your river smells and turns a disgusting color and dead fish float on top of it, no sophisticated scientific training is required to understand the link between what's happening in the river and the chemical plant dumping things into it. The first generation of the environmental movement had an easier time making the connection between cause and effect.

Evidence for this comes from approximately three decades of polling on the environment by Gallup. In the chart below, most of the polls took place between 1989 and 2019. ¹⁴ Note that, over time, the most worrisome environmental problems are visible pollution problems. Water, soil, and ocean and beach pollution are at the top. These are things average people can see and smell. Global warming or climate change is toward the bottom. These numbers change somewhat over time and understandably so, which is why data is included from 2019 where available. People are more worried about climate change than they used to be. Nonetheless, the complexity of the issue compared to the more straightforward cause-and-effect characteristics of other environmental issues is a major impediment to political action.

Environmental issue Range of the public who worried about this "a great deal" (from ~1989 to ~2019)Median percentage Public who worried about this "a great deal" in 2019

When former Vice President Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the prize was for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change." Through his books, his famous slide show, and his 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore made it his mission to explain the scientific processes that make global warming so dangerous. But the inherent complexity of cause and effect in climate change makes it a topic in need of continuous education.

Jurisdiction and accountability

The second major impediment to political action stems from problems of jurisdiction and accountability. From the beginning, modern government has relied upon the concept of jurisdiction-"territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power." ¹⁵ And implicit in the concept of jurisdiction is geography. But two of the stickiest problems of the 21 st century-climate change and cybersecurity-are challenging because it is so difficult to nail down jurisdiction. When we are able to establish jurisdiction we are able to establish rules, laws, and accountability for adherence to the law-the three bedrock principles of modern democratic governance. In the absence of jurisdiction, everyone is accountable and therefore no one is accountable.

When a cybercrime or cyberattack occurs, we have trouble with jurisdiction. If the perpetrator of a cyberattack on an electrical grid is a Russian living in Tirana, Albania, who routes attacks through France and Canada, who can prosecute the individual? (Assuming, that is, that we can even find them.) Similarly, if coal plants in China and cattle ranching in Australia increase their outputs of greenhouse gases in one year and there are droughts in Africa and floods in Europe the next, who is responsible?

We currently attribute greenhouse gas emissions to individual countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we attribute greenhouse gases to their sources within the United States via the Environmental Protections Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. But attribution without enforcement mechanisms is only half the battle-if that. Nationally and internationally there is no legal architecture that allows us to reward and/or punish those who decrease or increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Even the Paris Agreement-which President Trump pulled the U.S. out of-is only a set of pledges from individual countries. Measurement is a first step toward accountability, and measurement needs constant improvement. But measurement in the absence of accountability is meaningless, especially in situations where many people are skeptical of cause and effect.

The Toxic Release Inventory was established by Congress in 1982 as an amendment to the Superfund Bill. Over the years, the steady flow of information about the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment has had many positive effects on regulators, environmentalists, and industrialists. ¹⁶ Studies have shown that "facilities reduce emissions by an additional 4.28% on average, and their use of source reduction increases by 3.07% on average when the relative assessed hazard level of a chemical increases compared to when it decreases." ¹⁷

But the Toxic Release Inventory has one advantage that the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program does not. The effects of dangerous chemicals on a population are generally fairly clear and obvious: dirty water, dirty air, difficulty breathing, unusual rates of cancer, etc. The cause and effect is often undeniable as the many lawyers who have represented communities and won their cases against large polluters can attest. Greenhouse gas emissions affect people thousands of miles away from their source and make it easier to believe that it wasn't the fossil fuels at all, just the weather pattern or an act of God. Hence, the linkage between jurisdiction and accountability is weak.

Collective action and trust

Our increasingly hot summers drive the demand for air conditioning. However, air conditioning adds to the heat outside. Scientists estimate that under a realistic set of circumstances, "waste heat from air conditioners exacerbated the heat island effect, the phenomenon in which densely packed cities experience higher temperatures than similarly situated rural areas." ¹⁸ Air conditioning could add as much as 1 degree Celsius (nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit) to the heat of a city. Which one of us, however, would voluntarily turn off their air conditioning knowing full well that hundreds of thousands of other "free riders" would not?

"It is the lack of trust in government that may be one of the foundational barriers to effective environmental action."

This is just one simplified version of the collective action problem. People may understand that they should act in a certain way for the greater good, but as individuals, they are loathe to turn off their air conditioning or stop flying places for vacations-knowing that others will not be joining them. This is why government is the most frequent solution to collective action problems. Combating climate change requires collective action on many fronts, and it requires collective action both nationally and internationally. But this is extremely difficult in democracies like the U.S., which face strong individualist traditions in the culture along with a lack of trust in government.

In fact, it is the lack of trust in government that may be one of the foundational barriers to effective environmental action. Writing in the journal Global Environmental Change, E. Keith Smith and Adam Mayer looked at 35 different countries. They found that a lack of trust in institutions blunts the public's risk perceptions and therefore their willingness to support behaviors or policies to address climate change. ¹⁹

Their findings make intuitive sense especially in the American context. If you are skeptical about government in general, you are skeptical about your government telling you that you need to do something about climate change; you are even more skeptical about an international body like the United Nations telling you that climate change is a very serious problem. Below is a graph showing the moving average over time of Americans who say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right "just about always" or "most of the time." ²⁰

Imagination

The final piece to the puzzle of why the political salience of climate change seems so out of step with the physical proof and urgency of the issue may have to do with the realm of imagination. As every journalist knows, it is important to be able to tell a story, and as every teacher knows, we learn best through stories. And novelists and screenwriters are the most effective and powerful storytellers we have in society. And yet, in an intriguing book called "The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable," the Indian novelist Amitav Ghosh writes that climate change is even more absent in the world of fiction than it is in nonfiction.

To see that this is so, we need only glance through the pages of a few highly regarded literary journals and book reviews, for example, the London Review of books, the New York Review of Books, the Los Angeles Review of Books, the Literary Journal, and the New York Times Review of Books. When the subject of climate change occurs in these publications, it is almost always in relation to nonfiction; novels and short stories are very rarely to be glimpsed within this horizon. Indeed, it could even be said that fiction that deals with climate change is almost by definition not of the kind that is taken seriously by serious literary journals: the mere mention of the subject is often enough to relegate a noel or short story to the genre of science fiction. ²¹

The absence of climate change from novels means that it is also absent from movies and television-the great powerful purveyors of stories in our time. One can't underestimate the power of fiction in shaping society's attitudes. Some older Americans can remember how the 1958 novel "Exodus," by Leon Uris, and the subsequent 1960 movie by the same name impacted a generation of non-Jewish Americans to be supportive of Israel. Or how the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich," based on a true story of a young woman who takes on an energy corporation, helped popularize the environmental justice movement.

Ghosh's contribution to our understanding of this issue is not so much in his sections on politics as it is on his insight that fiction in our age is unable to deal with events that are so improbable and so removed from the agency of the individual that they cannot be written about in any realistic way.

All of which brings us back to our two Saturday Night Live comedians.

Conclusion

We have trouble imagining the potential devastation of climate change. We have trouble trusting governments to lead us into much needed collective action. We have trouble defining the links between jurisdiction and accountability. And we have trouble understanding the causality in the first place.

How can we fix this? And can we fix this in time to avoid the most severe consequences of climate change?

Some people, recognizing the political problem, hope for a technological fix such as carbon capture or some other geoengineering fix. The problem with technological fixes is that they are remote and may very well not be effective in time to stave off massive amounts of social and economic disruption. On the other hand, early-1950s America faced what seemed to be an endlessly heartbreaking polio epidemic; in less than a decade, however, a vaccine was developed and the epidemic ended. Given the technological miracles seen in our lifetime, we should not dismiss a technological solution, and we should invest heavily in one with both public and private dollars.

A second imperative is to increase basic scientific literacy so that the burden of pedagogy does not fall on folks like Al Gore alone. Some of this is already happening with the attention given to STEM training in education. But it is clear that climate change is only one of many complex scientific issues that average citizens will be called upon to understand and act on in the future. A renewed focus on scientific literacy may need to be implemented throughout America's schools.

Which brings us to the storytellers. Just as Al Gore won an Emmy for a movie on climate change, the creative elements in our society need to help explain what's at stake. They will find a receptive audience in the younger generation. As evidenced by their activism on this issue-this past week, millions marched in countries around the world to protest inaction around climate change-young people are especially concerned with the environment. ²² The millennial generation is a very large one, and they have so far shown themselves to be civic minded and environmentally engaged.

"Awareness without the ability to hold corporations, countries, and individuals accountable will not result in major action on environmental issues. But measurement and accountability without an understanding of the connections between a warmer planet and dangerous climate changes will not result in major action either."

A third imperative is to strengthen the link between jurisdiction and accountability. Nationally and internationally, we need to be able to reward and punish private and public actors for their environmental actions. The condemnation of Brazil's government for deforestation and fires in the Amazon was largely without consequences. Until there are penalties for things like greenhouse gas emissions, they will not be reduced in sufficient amounts.

Because this issue poses the ultimate collective action problem, it requires governmental action, such as treaties, taxes, and regulations, for starters. But very few citizens in our country are going to support governmental action without first trusting government to get it right. We need to restore trust in government. It has been on a steady downward slide since the George W. Bush administration. Unless we restore trust in government, we are not likely to achieve significant collective action.

Of course, all these things must proceed hand in hand. Awareness without the ability to hold corporations, countries, and individuals accountable will not result in major action on environmental issues. But measurement and accountability without an understanding of the connections between a warmer planet and dangerous climate changes will not result in major action either. Above all, we need to restore-through government and other means-our trust in collective action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The challenging politics of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We don't really worry about climate change because it's too overwhelming and we're already in too deep. It's like if you owe your bookie $1,000, you're like, 'OK, I've got to pay this dude back.'

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a comprehensive definition of environmental enforcement; the complex act of enforcing environmental laws. It includes both a definition of environmental enforcement, its methodologies, reasoning, and how it connects to environmental law. It provides an external link to a comprehensive definition of environmental law as well. The article also defines various terms ("Lingo") that one might encounter during research, such as NGOs, ambient standards, performance standards, etc.

This article is inherently unbiased as it does not necessarily provide insight to topics, it just provides definitions. It can help us understand other sources, provide more words for us to include as keywords, and help us further understand the issue we are trying to reflect on. It can help us in our project by allowing us a reference point for using sophisticated and complex words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Environmental enforcement is the set of actions that a government takes to achieve full implementation of environmental requirements (compliance) within the regulated community and to correct or halt situations or activities that endanger the environment or public health. Experience with environmental programs has shown that enforcement is essential to compliance because many people and institutions will not comply with a law unless there are clear consequences for noncompliance. Enforcement by the government usually includes inspections to determine the compliance status of the regulated community and to detect violations; negotiations with individuals or facility managers who are out of compliance to develop mutually agreeable schedules and approaches for achievement of compliance; legal action when necessary to compel compliance and to impose some consequences for violation of the law or for posing a threat to public health and the environment; and compliance promotion, such as educational programs, technical assistance, and subsidies, to encourage voluntary compliance.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) may become involved in enforcement by detecting noncompliance, negotiating with violators, and commenting on governmental enforcement actions. They may also, if the law allows, take legal actions against a violator for noncompliance or against the government for not enforcing environmental requirements. The banking and insurance industries may be indirectly involved with enforcement by requiring assurance of compliance with environmental requirements before they issue a loan or an insurance policy to a facility. Strong social sanctions for noncompliance with environmental requirements can also be effective to ensure compliance. For example, the public may choose to boycott a product if they believe the manufacturer is harming the environment.

Environmental enforcement is based on environmental laws. An environmental law provides the vision, scope, and authority for environmental protection and restoration. Some environmental laws contain requirements while others specify a structure and criteria for establishing requirements, which are then developed separately. Requirements may be general, in which they apply to a group of facilities, or facility-specific.

Examples of environmental enforcement programs include those that govern the ambient environment, performance, technology, work practices, dissemination of information, and product or use bans.

Ambient standards (media quality standard) are goals for the quality of the ambient environment (that is, air and water quality). Ambient standards are usually written in units of concentration, and they are used to plan the levels of emissions that can be accommodated from individual sources while still meeting an area-wide goal. Ambient standards can also be used as triggers (i.e., when a standard is exceeded, monitoring or enforcement efforts are increased). Enforcement of these standards involves relating an ambient measurement to emissions or activities at a specific facility, which can be difficult.

Performance standards, widely used for regulations, permits, and monitoring requirements, limit the amount or rate of particular chemicals or discharges that a facility can release into the environment in a given period of time. These standards allow sources to choose which technologies they will use to meet the standards. Performance standards are often based on output that can be achieved by using the best available control technology. Some standards allow a source with multiple emissions to vary its emissions from each stack as long as the total sum of emissions does not exceed the permitted total. Compliance with emission standards is accomplished by sampling and monitoring, which in some cases may be difficult and/or expensive.

Technology standards require the regulated community to use a particular type of technology (i.e., "best available technology") to control and/or monitor emissions. Technology standards are effective if the equipment specified is known to perform well under the range of conditions experienced by the source. Compliance is measured by whether the equipment is installed and operating properly. However, proper operation over a long period of time is more difficult to monitor. The use of technology standards can inhibit technological innovation.

Practice standards require or prohibit work activities that may have environmental impacts (e.g., prohibition of carrying hazardous liquids in uncovered containers). Regulators can easily inspect for compliance and take action against noncomplying sources, but ongoing compliance is not easy to ensure.

Dissemination of information and product or use bans are also governed by environmental enforcement programs. Information standards require a source of potential pollution (e.g., a manufacturer or facility involved in generating, transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes) to develop and submit information to the government. For example, a source generating pollution may be required to monitor, maintain records, and report on the level of pollution generated and whether or not the source exceeds performance standards. Information requirements are also used when a potential pollution source is a product such as a new chemical or pesticide. The manufacturer may be required to test and report on the potential of the product to cause harm if released into the environment. Finally, product or use bans are used to prohibit a product (i.e., ban the manufacture, sale, and/or use of a product), or they may prohibit particular uses of a product.

An effective environmental law should include the authority or power necessary for its own enforcement. An effective authority should govern implementation of environmental requirements, inspection, and monitoring of facilities, and legal sanctions for noncompliance. One type of authority that is used is guidance for the implementation of environmental laws by issuance of regulations, permits, licenses, and/or guidance policies. Regulations establish, in greater detail than is specified by law, general requirements that must be met by the regulated community. Some regulations are directly enforced, whereas others provide criteria and procedures for developing facility-specific requirements utilizing permits and licenses to provide the basis of enforcement. Permits are used to control activities related to construction or operation of facilities that generate pollutants. Requirements in permits are based on specific criteria established in laws, regulations, and/or guidance. General permits specify what a class of facilities is required to do, whereas a facility-specific permit specifies requirements for a particular facility, often taking into account the conditions there. Licenses are permits to manufacture, test, sell, or distribute a product that may pose an environmental or public health risk if improperly used. Licenses may be general or facility specific. Written guidance and policies, which are prepared by the regulator, are used to interpret and implement requirements to ensure consistency and fairness. Guidance may be necessary because not all applications of requirements can be anticipated, when regulation is achieved by the use of facility-specific permits or licenses.

Authority is also required to provide for inspection and monitoring of facilities, with legal sanctions for noncompliance. Requirements may either be waived or prepared for facility-specific conditions. The authority will inspect regulated facilities and gain access to their records and equipment to determine if they are in compliance.

Authority is necessary to ensure that the regulated community monitors its own compliance, maintains records of its compliance activities and status, reports this information periodically to the enforcement program, and provides information during inspections.

An effective law should also include the authority to take legal action against non-complying facilities, imposing a range of monetary penalties and other sanctions on facilities that violate the law, as well as criminal sanctions on those facilities or individuals who deliberately violate the law (e.g., facilities that knowingly falsify data). Also, power should be granted to correct situations that pose an immediate and substantial threat to public health and/or the environment.

The range and types of environmental enforcement response mechanisms available depend on the number and types of authorities provided to the enforcement program by environmental and related laws. Enforcement mechanisms may be designed to return violators to compliance, impose a sanction, or remove the economic benefits of noncompliance. Enforcement may require that specific actions be taken to test, monitor, or provide information. Enforcement may also correct environmental damages and modify internal company management problems.

Enforcement response mechanisms include informal responses, such as phone calls, site visits and inspections, warning letters, and notices of violations, which are more formal than warning letters. They provide the facility manager with a description of the violation, what should be done to correct it, and by what date. Informal responses do not penalize but can lead to more severe responses if ignored. The more formal enforcement mechanisms are backed by law and are accompanied by procedural requirements to protect the rights of the individual. Authority to use formal enforcement mechanisms for a specific situation must be provided in the applicable environmental law. Civil administrative orders are legal, independently enforceable orders issued directly by enforcement program officials that define the violation, provide evidence of the violation, and require the recipient to correct the violation within a specified time period. If the recipient violates the order, program managers can take further legal action using additional orders or the court system to force compliance.

Further legal action includes the use of field citations, which are administrative orders issued by inspectors in the field. They require the violator to correct a clear-cut violation and pay a small monetary fine. Field citations are used to handle more routine types of violations that do not pose a major threat to the environment. Legal action may also lead to civil judicial enforcement actions, which are formal lawsuits before the courts. These actions are used to require action to reduce immediate threats to public health or the environment, to enforce administrative orders that have been violated, and to make final decisions regarding orders that have been appealed. Finally, a criminal judicial response is used when a person or facility has knowingly and willfully violated the law or has committed a violation for which society has chosen to impose the most serious legal sanctions available. This response involves criminal sanction, which may include monetary penalties and imprisonment. The criminal response is the most difficult type of enforcement, requiring intensive investigation and case development, but it can also create a significant deterrence.

Environmental enforcement must include processes to balance the rights of individuals with the government's need to act quickly. A notice of violation should be issued before any action is taken so that the finding of violation can be contested, or so that the violation can be corrected before further government action. Appeals should be allowed at several stages in the enforcement process so that the finding of violation, the required remedial action, or the severity of the proposed sanction can be reviewed. There should also be dispute resolution processes for negotiations between program officials and the violator, which may include face-to-face discussions, presentations before a judge or hearing examiner, or use of third party mediators, arbitrators, or facilitators.

Some areas either lack environmental laws or have regulatory agencies that lack the resources or will to enforce existing laws. A 2012 study by the World Bank revealed that illegal is a $10 billion to $15 billion-per-year industry worldwide and accounts for the destruction of an area the size of football field every second. The study found that most illegal logging is conducted by organized crime with much of the profit going to corrupt government officials. A separate 2013 study found that half of all timber imported into China from Mozambique alone was harvested and traded illegally.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|CV2644150481

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental enforcement is the set of actions that a government takes to achieve full implementation of environmental requirements (compliance) within the regulated community and to correct or halt situations or activities that endanger the environment or public health.

# data[].attributes.body
Summarize:
This article is about how climate change is affecting our planet such as the vegetation and the food we grow.
Asses:
This article will be great if we need information on how climate change is affecting us and our planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate-induced die-off affects plant-soil-microbe ecological relationship and functioning - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study reports the relationship between the diversity and functioning of fungal and bacterial soil communities with vegetation in Mediterranean woodland that experienced severe die-off after a drought episode. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorfism (TRFLP) was used to describe microbia…

# data[].attributes.body
Global Climate Change: Sustainability And Government Resources by NASA
Summarize:
this article is from NASA is telling us as humans what we need to do to help combat climate change and what we are supposed to do to help stop it along with what the government can do.
Asses:
we can use this article to help inform people what we need to do to combat climate change along with what the government needs to do to combat climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA is an expert in climate and Earth science. While its role is not to set climate policy or prescribe particular responses or solutions to climate change, its job does include providing the scientific data needed to understand climate change. NASA then makes this information available to the global community - the public, policy-, and decision-makers and scientific and planning agencies around the world. (For more information, see NASA's role.)

With that said, NASA takes sustainability very seriously. NASA's sustainability policy is to execute its mission as efficiently as possible. In doing so, we continually improve our space and ground operations.

Sustainability involves taking action now to protect the environment for both current and future living conditions. In implementing sustainability practices, NASA supports its missions by reducing risks to the environment and our communities.

In executing its mission, NASA's sustainability objectives are to:

increase energy efficiency;

increase the use of renewable energy;

measure, report, and reduce NASA's direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions;

conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management;

eliminate waste, prevent pollution, and increase recycling;

leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and services;

design, construct, maintain, and operate high-performance sustainable buildings;

utilize power management options and reduce the number of agency data centers;

support economic growth and livability of the communities where NASA conducts business;

evaluate agency climate change risks and vulnerabilities and develop mitigation and adaptation measures to manage both the short-and long-term effects of climate change on the agency's mission and operations;

raise employee awareness and encourage each individual in the NASA community to apply the concepts of sustainability to every aspect of their daily work to achieve these goals;

maintain compliance with all applicable federal, state, local or territorial law and regulations related to energy security, a healthy environment, and environmentally-sound operations; and

comply with internal NASA requirements and agreements with other entities.

For more information on NASA's numerous plans to upgrade infrastructure, reduce energy intensity, and decrease water use, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/on-a-changing-planet-nasa-goes-green https://www.sustainability.gov/nasa.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/sustainability/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/emd/sustainable-acquisition https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/sustainability/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/greenspace/nasas-role.html#green%20aviation
The following selected resources from U.S. government organizations provide information about options for responding to climate change.

Data and Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national aeronautics and space administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA Global Climate Change: Sustainability and Government Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An overview of NASA's role in sustainability and selected resources from U.S. government organizations that provide information about options for responding to climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
Fact Sheet: President Biden Takes Executive Actions To Tackle The climate Crisis At Home And Abroad, Create Jobs, And Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government by The White House
Summarize:
this article talks about all the actions that president Biden has taken to combat climate change and what he is currently planning on doing to combat climate change.
Asses:
we can use this article within the project to help us show what the government is doing currently and planning on doing to combat climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, President Biden will take executive action to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad while creating good-paying union jobs and equitable clean energy future, building modern and sustainable infrastructure, restoring scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking across the federal government, and re-establishing the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

These Executive Orders follow through on President Biden's promise to take aggressive action to tackle climate change and build on the executive actions that the President took on his first day in office, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and immediate review of harmful rollbacks of standards that protect our air, water, and communities.

President Biden set ambitious goals that will ensure America and the world can meet the urgent demands of the climate crisis, while empowering American workers and businesses to lead a clean energy revolution that achieves a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and puts the United States on an irreversible path to a net-zero economy by 2050. Today's actions advance those goals and ensure that we are tapping into the talent, grit, and innovation of American workers, revitalizing the U.S. energy sector, conserving our natural resources and leveraging them to help drive our nation toward a clean energy future, creating well-paying jobs with the opportunity to join a union, and delivering justice for communities who have been subjected to environmental harm.

President Biden will also sign an important Presidential Memorandum on scientific integrity to send a clear message that the Biden-Harris Administration will protect scientists from political interference and ensure they can think, research, and speak freely to provide valuable information and insights to the American people. Additionally, and in line with the scientific-integrity memorandum's charge to reestablish scientific advisory committees, President Biden will sign an Executive Order re-establishing the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

TACKLING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AT HOME AND ABROAD EXECUTIVE ORDER

Today's Executive Order takes bold steps to combat the climate crisis both at home and throughout the world. In signing this Executive Order, President Biden has directed his Administration to:

Center the Climate Crisis in U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Considerations

The order clearly establishes climate considerations as an essential element of U.S. foreign policy and national security.

The order affirms that, in implementing - and building on - the Paris Agreement's objectives, the United States will exercise its leadership to promote a significant increase in global ambition. It makes clear that both significant short-term global emission reductions and net zero global emissions by mid-century - or before - are required to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.

The order reaffirms that the President will host a Leaders' Climate Summit on Earth Day, April 22, 2021; that the United States will reconvene the Major Economies Forum; that, to underscore the administration's commitment to elevating climate in U.S. foreign policy, the President has created a new position, the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, which will have a seat on the National Security Council, and that it will be a U.S. priority to press for enhanced climate ambition and integration of climate considerations across a wide range of international fora.

The order also kicks off the process of developing the United States' "nationally determined contribution" - our emission reduction target - under the Paris Agreement, as well as a climate finance plan.

Among numerous other steps aimed at prioritizing climate in U.S. foreign policy and national security, the order directs the Director of National Intelligence to prepare a National Intelligence Estimate on the security implications of climate change, the State Department to prepare a transmittal package to the Senate for the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and all agencies to develop strategies for integrating climate considerations into their international work.

Take a Whole-of-Government Approach to the Climate Crisis

The order formally establishes the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy - led by the first-ever National Climate Advisor and Deputy National Climate Advisor - creating a central office in the White House that is charged with coordinating and implementing the President's domestic climate agenda.

The order establishes the National Climate Task Force, assembling leaders from across 21 federal agencies and departments to enable a whole-of-government approach to combatting the climate crisis.

Leverage the Federal Government's Footprint and Buying Power to Lead by Example

Consistent with the goals of the President's Build Back Better jobs and economic recovery plan, of which his clean energy jobs plan is a central pillar, the order directs the federal agencies to procure carbon pollution-free electricity and clean, zero-emission vehicles to create good-paying, union jobs and stimulate clean energy industries.

In addition, the order requires those purchases be Made in America, following President Biden's Buy American executive order. The order also directs agencies to apply and strictly enforce the prevailing wage and benefit guidelines of the Davis Bacon and other acts and encourage Project Labor Agreements. These actions reaffirm that agencies should work to ensure that any jobs created with funds to address the climate crisis are good jobs with a choice to join a union.

The order directs each federal agency to develop a plan to increase the resilience of its facilities and operations to the impacts of climate change and directs relevant agencies to report on ways to expand and improve climate forecast capabilities - helping facilitate public access to climate related information and assisting governments, communities, and businesses in preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030. The order does not restrict energy activities on lands that the United States holds in trust for Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to consult with Tribes regarding the development and management of renewable and conventional energy resources, in conformance with the U.S. government's trust responsibilities.

The order directs federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies as consistent with applicable law and identify new opportunities to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

Rebuild Our Infrastructure for a Sustainable Economy

The order catalyzes the creation of jobs in construction, manufacturing, engineering and the skilled-trades by directing steps to ensure that every federal infrastructure investment reduces climate pollution and that steps are taken to accelerate clean energy and transmission projects under federal siting and permitting processes in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Advance Conservation, Agriculture, and Reforestation

The order commits to the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030 and launches a process for stakeholder engagement from agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, Tribes, States, Territories, local officials, and others to identify strategies that will result in broad participation.

The order also calls for the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps Initiative to put a new generation of Americans to work conserving and restoring public lands and waters, increasing reforestation, increasing carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protecting biodiversity, improving access to recreation, and addressing the changing climate.

The order directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect input from farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders on how to use federal programs to encourage adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices that produce verifiable carbon reductions and sequestrations and create new sources of income and jobs for rural Americans.

Revitalize Energy Communities

The order establishes an Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, to be co-chaired by the National Climate Advisor and the Director of the National Economic Council, and directs federal agencies to coordinate investments and other efforts to assist coal, oil and natural gas, and power plant communities.

The order tasks the new Interagency Working Group to advance projects that reduce emissions of toxic substances and greenhouse gases from existing and abandoned infrastructure and that prevent environmental damage that harms communities and poses a risk to public health and safety - such as projects to reduce methane emissions, oil and brine leaks, and other environmental harms from tens of thousands of former mining and well sites.

In addition, the new Interagency Working Group is also directed to explore efforts to turn properties idled in these communities, like brownfields, into new hubs for the growth of our economy.

Secure Environmental Justice and Spur Economic Opportunity

The order formalizes President Biden's commitment to make environmental justice a part of the mission of every agency by directing federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged communities.

The order establishes a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council and a White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council to prioritize environmental justice and ensure a whole-of-government approach to addressing current and historical environmental injustices, including strengthening environmental justice monitoring and enforcement through new or strengthened offices at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, and Department of Health and Human Services. The new bodies are also tasked with advising on ways to update Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994.

The order creates a government-wide Justice40 Initiative with the goal of delivering 40 percent of the overall benefits of relevant federal investments to disadvantaged communities and tracks performance toward that goal through the establishment of an Environmental Justice Scorecard.

The order initiates the development of a Climate and Environmental Justice Screening Tool, building off EPA's EJSCREEN, to identify disadvantaged communities, support the Justice40 Initiative, and inform equitable decision making across the federal government

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
The Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking directs agencies to make evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data. Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence are central to the development and iterative improvement of sound policies, and to the delivery of effective and equitable programs. Improper political interference in the scientific process, with the work of scientists, and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the nation, contributes to systemic inequities and injustices, and violates the public trust.

The memorandum charges the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with the responsibility for ensuring scientific integrity across federal agencies. The OSTP Director is directed to review the effectiveness of agency scientific-integrity policies and assess agency scientific-integrity policies and practices going forward.

In addition, agencies that oversee, direct, or fund research are tasked with designating a senior agency employee as Chief Science Officer to ensure agency research programs are scientifically and technologically well founded and conducted with integrity. Because science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government, all agencies - not just those that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research -must designate a senior career employee as the agency's Scientific Integrity Official to oversee implementation and iterative improvement of scientific-integrity policies and processes.

EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHING THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Leaders across the Biden-Harris Administration, including the President himself and his senior advisors in the Executive Office of the President, will seek input, advice, and the best-available science, data, and scientific and technological information from scientists, engineers, and other experts in science, technology, and innovation.

To that end, and in alignment with the scientific-integrity memorandum's charge to reestablish scientific and technological advisory committees, this order re-establishes the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The PCAST- co-chaired by the President's Science Advisor - will advise the President on policy that affects science, technology, and innovation. The Council will also advise the President on scientific and technical information that is needed to inform public policy relating to the economy, worker empowerment, education, energy, environment, public health, national and homeland security, racial equity, and other topics.

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FACT SHEET: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government | The White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biden-Harris Administration Commits on Climate Change - Creating Jobs, Building Infrastructure, and Delivering Environmental Justice Today, President Biden will take executive action to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad while creating good-paying union jobs and equitable clean energy future, building modern and sustainable infrastructure, restoring scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking across the federal...

# data[].attributes.body
This source focuses on the tension between the federal and state governments considering proactivity when it comes to pollution control and environmentalism. The article describes the states' "race to the bottom"- who could cut more corners when it comes to following through with environmental goals. The federal government established goals and some federal guidelines, but the states were tasked with implementing them. How much could the federal government trust the states to actually follow through with their desires? Very little, apparently. They ended up cutting as many corners as possible, shortchanging environmental protection to attract businesses. The article ends by still questioning the extent to which the federal government can regulate the environment, but also the extent to which a state government can enforce.

This article will be helpful to base more research questions off of. Rather than providing answers, the article provides the questions, the debate. It is good at being unbiased, in the sense that it provides questions for both sides of the debate. It questions the extent of power both the government, and the states have. While not necessarily providing answers, it provides good context and background information to extend our search off of.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Protection & the States: ”“Race to the Bottom”″ or ”“Race to the Bottom Line”″? | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brookings Review article by Mary Graham (Winter 1998)

# data[].attributes.body
This source describes the varying power of local vs. state vs. federal governments when it comes to environmental protection. The author primarily describes the differences between the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York City Department of Environmental protection. Mainly, the article discusses the various jurisdictions of environmental protection that each government possesses, and their funding

This source is reliably informed as it comes from the prestigious Columbia University's Columbia Climate School. It comes from author Dr. Steven Cohen, whom often writes for the school. The piece is quite objective, it is based on facts and cited sources. The scholarly nature of the article lends it authority. It cites directly from environmental studies and reports, like from the Environmental Council of the States. The goal of the source is to identify key differences between the state, local, and federal governments. The purpose is informational, rather than persuasive.

Using this source, we can identify key differences with how different governments are able to solve different problems in different ways. The federal government is more concerned with inter-state issues, state governments more so large areas of land and environmental business initiatives, and local governments focus on individual preserves. These differences are key in understanding the complexity of government involvement in environmental protection. It helps us communicate with each other so we know what the other is talking about when they say state, local, or federal government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The State and Local Role in Protecting America's Environment

Due to its power, media attention, and symbolic importance, we pay a great deal of attention to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA plays an important and unique role in keeping our environment clean, although most of the heavy lifting in American environmental protection is done by state and local governments. EPA sets policy, subsidizes state and local programs, oversees states, and conducts scientific research, but state and local governments do the day-to-day work of environmental protection. A quick look at a few numbers may provide perspective. The U.S. EPA has a staff of about 15,000 people and an annual budget of $8 billion. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a staff of 3,000 and a budget of $1.4 billion. New York City's Department of Environmental Protection spends about $1.5 billion a year and has a staff of 6,000. And there are 49 other states and thousands of local governments in America.

When writing about this issue last year, I reported on the results of a study published by the Environmental Council of the States and observed that:
"According to their report, state environmental agency funding rose from $12.2 billion in 2013 to $14.9 billion in 2015. But most of that increase was in California where the budget grew from $2.9 billion to $4.9 billion. With California excluded, state funding only went up from $9.3 billion in 2013 to $10.0 billion in 2015. Federal support for states other than California during this part of the Obama administration dropped by 3 percent from $2,557,856,937 in 2013 to $2,493,785,970 in 2015. Remember that the Obama Administration was not immune to the right-wing attack on environmental regulation that has dominated the budget making process for years. EPA lost 1,600 staff during the Obama years."
State funding was greater than federal funding and did not always include all the costs of environmental protection, many of which are funded locally and by state agencies not called "environmental." One of the most expensive state and local services is water supply, followed by sewage treatment. These are organized differently by different states, cities and counties, and so comparisons across states and localities are not always straightforward. For example, New York City's Water Board controls an annual budget of about $3.8 billion, and about $1.4 of the city's annual $1.5 billion environmental protection budget comes from the water authority. Almost $1.8 billion of the $3.8 billion Water Board budget is debt service that pays the costs of the bonds used to build the city's extensive water infrastructure system. The revenues for the system come from water bills paid by property owners in New York City.

Functions such as water supply, sewage treatment, and garbage disposal are non-optional, critical environmental services typically performed by America's local governments. People expect these services to be performed, but also recognize that rules and regulations are required to ensure that people don't dump their garbage in the streets or release toxics into our water supply. Environmental protection is not simply regulations that tell businesses what they need to do to avoid damage to the planet, but rules to ensure that effective environmental services can be provided to residents and businesses everywhere. Businesses in many cities are required to pay for garbage removal by highly regulated waste haulers. Rules on property upkeep, sidewalk cleanliness and disposal of hazardous materials are set and enforced by local governments.

It is unfortunate that ideologues have painted environmental regulation as the enemy of the free market, or capitalism as the enemy of the environmental protection. We like the wealth and lifestyle made possible through free enterprise, but we also like to breathe. Why should these two goals be seen as incompatible? We have already demonstrated they are complementary. The economies of America, Western Europe and Japan have grown over the past half century as we have applied technology to make our air and water cleaner. Environmental protection is not cheap, but the benefits are far greater than the costs. We can and should do more, and we can do it without harming the economy.

The U.S. EPA is shrinking at the very time we need it to increase its capacity to understand and govern the nation's environment. But despite that distressing fact, the fundamental environmental functions performed by state, county and city governments will continue to grow. They are growing because our population is growing along with our knowledge of the health effects of pollution-and because we expect government to protect us from knowable dangers. We may not always know what's in our food or water, but when we see people getting sick, or when we find out that a slow acting toxic like lead is in our water, we demand government act to protect us. Governors, mayors, and county executives get this, and until recently, so did presidents.

Despite the centrality of government's environmental functions, the federal EPA is routinely and reflexively attacked by the Republican right wing. We saw this in recent Republican primary battles. As Louis Jacobson reported in Politifact this past April:
"The Environmental Protection Agency is not very popular among West Virginia Republicans, who see the agency as threatening the state's mining jobs through overregulation - at least until President Donald Trump took office. So, during an April 23 debate between Republican primary candidates for a U.S. Senate seat, it was not surprising to hear the agency criticized. One of the candidates, U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, boasted about his efforts to rein in the agency. "I've cut a half a billion (dollars) out of the EPA just in the last two years. We've cut 3,000 jobs out of the EPA," he said. (It's around 29:30 in the video.)"
It turned out that Jenkins was right about the money, but overstated the staff cuts. But the odd part is the assumption that cutting an environmental agency is an accomplishment worth bragging about. In the end it didn't help him much since Jenkins lost his senate primary to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, with 29 percent of the vote to Morrisey's 35 percent.

Environmental politics at the national level was once governed by cooperation and consensus. In 1972, support for cleaning up America's water was so strong that Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act over the veto of then-President Richard Nixon. The Superfund toxic waste clean-up law was passed in December of 1980 following a deal between southern conservative Senator Jesse Helms and northeastern liberal Congressman Jim Florio. In the 1970s and 1980s, the federal government played the lead role in developing the institutions we needed to protect our environment. While a functioning federal legislative branch seems an artifact of the twentieth century, support for a clean environment remains strong today.

While some state governments such as California's and New York's have the size and technical competence to provide environmental governance, many others do not. The lead contamination of Flint, Michigan's water systems should have been prevented by EPA's Region V office or Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality. The cost of providing clean water today is much higher than it would have been if the lead contamination had never happened. Many states struggle to ensure adequate water, sewage and solid waste services. Still, recognizing its small resource base, for decades the federal EPA has actively delegated its regulatory authority to states. This is not new. No one wants to pay the costs of a clean environment. But nature is unforgiving. You either pay to prevent the poison from being released into our ecosystems or pay the much higher price of cleaning it up later.

America is a more crowded place than it once was. We have more people, cars, consumption, and waste. Our waste stream is more toxic and less biodegradable than it was in 1950. Without rules and adequate infrastructure, our communities will become less healthy places to live. State and local governments have no choice but keep our waste out of the ocean and poison out of our water supply. The political pressure to assure a clean environment ramps up every time an environmental health danger is identified and understood. An efficient, equitable and cost-effective way to deliver environmental protection requires a technically competent and well-led federal presence, working alongside active and well-trained state and local partners. We are heading in the opposite direction now. To the extent it can, the vacuum created by a feeble EPA will be filled by states, communities, and corporations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State and Local Role in Protecting America's Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Due to its power, media attention, and symbolic importance, we pay a great deal of attention to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA plays an important and unique role in keeping our environment clean, although most of the heavy lifting in American environmental protection is done by state and local governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Government Activity On Climate Change by Ballotpedia

Summarize:
This article is about how different Presidential administrations did different things while in administrations and what Acts that they had put in place along with big legislation changes.

Asses:
I think that this is a great source to use to show how the government helped with climate change and how it will continue to help if we try and get the government more involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change can refer to significant or large-scale changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, or other weather-related events that can occur over a long period of time, including decades, centuries, and millennia. Human-caused climate change is the theory that human-induced increases in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases (heat-trapping gases) in the atmosphere can lead to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate. Various proposed policies to address potentially human-caused climate change include limits on carbon dioxide emissions from oil, coal, and natural gas and policies to support the production of renewable energy, such as wind and solar energy.

The following article includes background information on the concepts referenced in climate change policy discussions and summaries of federal and state government policies related to the issue. For an article on the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change, click here.

Background

Climate is a combination of normally prevailing weather conditions averaged over decades, centuries, or longer periods of time. These conditions include air pressure, atmospheric conditions, humidity, temperature, precipitation, cloudiness, fog, frost, sunshine, winds, and more. By contrast, weather is a combination of the same conditions in an area or region over shorter periods of time, such as days, weeks, or months. The earth's climate system is affected by several factors, including the atmosphere; volcanic eruptions; snow; ice; oceans and other bodies of water; land surface; biological organisms, including human beings, wildlife, and vegetation; changes in Earth's orbit; and solar activity.

Climate change can refer to significant or large-scale changes in land surface and ocean temperature, precipitation, storm and wind patterns, or other weather-related events that can occur over a long period of time, including decades, centuries, and millennia. In the public debate, the term climate change may be used interchangeably with the theory that human activity since the Industrial Revolution contributes to and/or is responsible for global warming and subsequent changes in the climate. This theory states that global warming will occur when concentrations of greenhouse gases (heat-trapping gases) such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane rise and thus keep more heat in the atmosphere than can escape into space and/or be absorbed on Earth. More heat in the atmosphere, less absorption of greenhouse gases on Earth, and solar and volcanic activity may contribute to an increase in global average surface temperatures.

Global warming refers to a gradual increase in global surface temperatures and the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. Global warming is associated with the greenhouse effect that is produced when the Earth's surface and atmosphere absorb solar energy and reradiates the energy back into space. A portion of the absorbed energy is emitted by land and oceans, absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, and reradiated back to the Earth. The greenhouse effect is one of several climate forcings, which are the major drivers of Earth's climate, alongside solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and aerosols.

The image below shows how greenhouse gases produce the greenhouse effect.

Climate feedbacks

The greenhouse effect caused by greenhouse gases is known as a climate forcing; climate forcings are the major influencers of Earth's climate. Along with greenhouse gas concentrations, climate forcings include changes in the sun's energy output, volcanic eruptions, and the presence of aerosols (small airborne particles from human-made and natural sources). Climate scientists study the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature compared to other factors and thus their contribution to global warming (defined as a rise in global average temperature) over time, as greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures have fluctuated over periods of hundreds, thousands, and millions of years.

In addition, scientists observe other factors that may influence the greenhouse effect and other climate forcings. These factors are feedbacks, which are processes that can either accelerate or reduce the warming effects of climate forcings like the greenhouse effect. A positive feedback can increase warming, while a negative feedback can reduce warming. The following positive and negative feedbacks can affect the impacts of the greenhouse effect on warming.

Clouds: Clouds reflect back into space approximately one-third of all sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere. Increased cloudiness caused by more water in the atmosphere can limit the amount of sunlight from hitting the Earth's surface, resulting in less absorbed heat and less warming.

Precipitation: A warmer atmosphere that holds more water can increase precipitation, though not in all regions. Changes in precipitation patterns can result in more water available for plants, which remove carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas, also known as CO₂) from the atmosphere. Increased plant growth could result in more CO₂ absorption from the atmosphere and thus less warming.

Forested areas: As negative feedbacks, forests, trees, and other plants remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and thus can reduce warming that may be the result of increased CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, forests and plants may also be cut down so that land is cleared for agriculture or other uses, which results in less CO₂ absorption.

Ice: Compared to ocean surfaces, which are dark and absorb heat more quickly, ice is white and thus quickly and more easily reflects sunlight. More ice and glaciers result in greater heat reflection and thus less warming. However, greater sea ice and glacier melting reduces this reflection and allows the ocean to absorb more heat and accelerate warming. This process is known as the ice albedo feedback.

Policy history (1992-2009)

In 1992, the United States under President George H.W. Bush (R) participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to discuss stabilizing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations. The framework included a legally non-binding and voluntary pledge by industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. All countries within the framework would also voluntarily measure and report emissions levels to the UNFCCC Secretariat. The U.S. Senate ratified the UNFCCC in October 1992.

Beginning in 1995, parties to the UNFCCC began negotiating a treaty to establish legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for 38 nations, which included industrialized nations such as the United States and countries within the European Union. The negotiations led to the Kyoto Protocol, which required the 38 nations to reduce their aggregate greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent from 1990 levels averaged over the years 2008-2012. In addition, each country would receive an individually negotiated emissions target. The United States under President Bill Clinton (D) signed the protocol in 1998, but it was not approved by the U.S. Senate.

In March 2001, President George W. Bush (R) said that the United States would pull out of the Kyoto Protocol and future negotiations. In lieu of Kyoto, Bush announced in February 2002 that the United States would reduce its net greenhouse gas intensity (defined as the ratio of emissions to economic output) by 18 percent between 2002-2012. In 2007, the Bush administration proposed a $3 billion fund to stimulate international funding for renewable energy production and climate change adaptation projects, though the fund was not approved. In 2008, the administration announced a national goal to stop the increase to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025. The plan would have included market-based incentives for individuals and businesses to produce renewable energy production, though it did not become law.

Legislative activity (2000-2017)

Congress considered various bills related to global warming and climate change from 2000 to 2017, including the following:

The Senate rejected the Climate Stewardship Act in October 2003 and in June 2005. The act would have capped carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels, exempted agricultural and residential areas from emissions caps, and established a scholarship at the National Academy of Sciences for the study of climatology. The measure was introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (D) and John McCain (R). The bill was defeated by a vote of 55 to 43 in 2003.

In 2005, the Climate Stewardship Act was reintroduced as the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which would have established a carbon dioxide emissions trading system for specific industries and other groups. The Senate rejected the bill by a vote of 60 to 38. Senate Republicans voting against the bill by a margin of 49 to six while Senate Democrats voted for the bill by a margin of 37 to 10.

In 2007, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act was introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D) and Bernie Sanders (I). The bill would require a system beginning in the year 2010 to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plant and automobiles and trade any excess emissions to select industries. In addition, the bill would require the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by the year 2020 and 83 percent by the year 2050 and would also require that gasoline be made with renewable fuels beginning in the year 2016. The bill was referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works but never received a full vote in the Senate during the 110th Congress, which was under Democratic control.

In 2009, the U.S. House passed a bill to establish a federal, economy-wide system to cap greenhouse gas emissions and trade any excess emissions to other regulated entities. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (known as the Waxman-Markey bill), passed by a vote of 219 to 212. The Waxman-Markey bill was not taken up in the United States Senate during the 111th Congress, though Congress was then under Democratic control.

In November and December 2015, Congress voted to repeal the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at new and existing power plants. In November 2015, the Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 52 to 46 to repeal the plan's provision mandating CO₂ reductions at existing power plants. A second resolution to repeal CO₂ reductions for newly built power plants passed by the same vote margin. The Senate held its vote under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to repeal newly published federal regulations within 60 days of their finalization. In December 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution repealing the Clean Power Plan's provision mandating CO₂ reductions from existing power plants by a vote of 242 to 180. In addition, the House passed a resolution repealing CO₂ reductions for newly built power plants by a vote of 235 to 188. Both resolutions were vetoed by President Obama.

In November 2015, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) introduced legislation to prevent new leases and all non-productive leases for coal, oil, and natural gas production on federal land for the purpose of limiting emissions from fossil fuels. Known as the Keep It In The Ground Act, the bill would also prohibit offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. The bill was co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D), Ben Cardin (D), Kirsten Gillibrand (D), Patrick Leahy (D), and Elizabeth Warren (D). It did not receive a vote in the 114th Congress, which was under Republican control.

Executive branch policies

Biden administration

On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden (D) signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris climate agreement.

Trump administration

For information about actions taken by the Trump administration regarding climate change policy, see the articles below:

Obama administration

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took steps to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA issued findings in 2009 and 2010 claiming that carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to human-caused climate change and as a result may endanger public health and welfare. The EPA further argued that its determination that carbon dioxide contributes to human-caused climate change established its authority to regulate CO₂ and other greenhouse gases from automobiles and power plants.

In April 2010, as part of its authority to set automobile standards under the Clean Air Act, the EPA required all 2012-2016 model year, light-duty vehicles, which includes most common cars, to meet carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gas emissions standards. In May 2010, the EPA required new heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and vans to meet emissions and fuel efficiency standards. In 2012, the EPA required all 2017-2025 model year cars to meet emissions and fuel efficiency standards.

The Clean Power Plan was finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 2015. It would mandate reductions in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric steam-generating units (which include coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power plants) and stationary combustion turbines (which include natural-gas-combined-cycle units) by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. The plan would require mandatory state-specific CO₂ reductions based on the CO₂ emission rate of each state's inventory of affected sources of electricity generation. As of March 2017, utilities, coal mining companies, and 27 states sued the federal government over the plan. As of March 2017, 18 states, over 50 municipalities, and several environmental groups filed briefs siding with the EPA in the litigation. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the rule's implementation pending federal litigation related to the plan's legality.

In April 2016, the United States under President Barack Obama (D) signed a 31-page international agreement, commonly known as the Paris Climate Agreement, at the United Nations. Signatory countries agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, which are heat-trapping gases that help warm the planet for human habitation and that some scientists have hypothesized contribute to human-caused global warming if their concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Signatory countries agreed to a long-term goal of keeping an increase in average global temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. Signatory countries also agreed to pursue policies aimed at keeping any temperature increase at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. Under the agreement, each nation has an emissions target, though the target is not legally binding. Developed countries like the United States are also required to finance climate change mitigation efforts and emissions reduction programs for developing countries primarily through the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which has a goal of providing $100 billion each year to developing countries for climate change purposes by 2020.

Judicial decisions

Massachusetts v. EPA

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is a 2007 United States Supreme Court ruling that found that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 5-4 ruling, the court argued that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide (CO ₂) emissions from motor vehicles if they are found to be endangering public health and welfare. The decision required the EPA to regulate CO ₂ emissions if they are found to endanger public health and welfare. In addition, the EPA was required to conclude that CO ₂ emissions do not endanger public health and welfare if the agency decided against regulating CO ₂. In 2009, the EPA issued a finding arguing that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to human-caused climate change and thus should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts and against the EPA. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. First, the court argued that Massachusetts and the environmental advocacy groups had standing to challenge the EPA in court. Second, the court wrote that the EPA had legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Third, the EPA argued that if it had legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the decision would conflict with the George W. Bush administration's preferred policies to address human-caused climate change issues. The court rejected the EPA's argument that the agency has the discretion to delay regulatory action on carbon dioxide based on its policy priorities.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia (who wrote a separate dissent). Roberts argued that he would not grant standing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners because the harm facing the petitioners through the EPA's decision against regulating carbon dioxide -such as the potentially rising sea levels and the loss of Massachusetts' coastal land-was not concrete enough to warrant the lawsuit. Roberts also argued that "the connection is far too speculative to establish causation" between the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide and concrete harm to Massachusetts from human-caused global warming.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate dissenting opinion. Like Roberts, Scalia wrote that he would deny legal standing to Massachusetts and the other petitioners. Regarding the issue of the EPA's discretion in not regulating carbon dioxide, Scalia argued that the Clean Air Act does not say anything specific about what reasons the EPA may or may not use not to regulate a physical or chemical substance. In addition, Scalia argued that he would have allowed the EPA to defer any decision on carbon dioxide emissions.

State policy

As of April 2017, eleven states imposed mandatory emissions standards for automobiles: California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Click here to read more about state government action on climate change.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Climate change United States. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal government activity on climate change - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change can refer to significant or large-scale changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, or other weather-related events that can occur over a long period of time, including decades, centuries, and millennia. Human-caused climate change is the theory that human-induced increases in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases (heat-trapping gases) in the atmosphere can lead to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal Action On Climate by Center For Climate and Energy Solutions

Summarize:
This article is about the federal action on the climate, and how different areas within the federal government are responsible for different things related towards the federal impact of human actions on climate change.

Asses:
I think that this article will be great to use to show how different areas within the federal government are responsible for different areas of climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the far-reaching nature of the climate challenge, effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience across the U.S. economy. Even in the absence of a comprehensive federal approach, the federal government can help accelerate progress being made by cities, states, and companies. Federal policymakers have a number of policy tools at their disposal:

Government research and development programs, such as the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy, can drive progress in clean energy technologies and bring them to commercial use.

Voluntary programs, like the Natural Gas STAR program, work with businesses to reduce emissions, often with public recognition.

Traditional regulations, such as fuel efficiency and emissions standards for cars and trucks, require companies to increase energy efficiency or reduce emissions in their own operations or in the goods they produce.

Market-based programs that put a price on carbon emissions, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, require emission reductions but let the private sector determine the most cost-effective way to achieve them.

Effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience.

While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy.

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches all have a role to play in reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and building resilient communities.

Congress is responsible for authorizing laws to address the climate challenge and appropriating funding for relevant programs. The Clean Air Act, for instance, provides the foundation for many existing climate policies. An economy-wide, market-based approach to climate change would require Congress to enact new legislation. Congress also has an important role in oversight of the executive branch and ensuring the administration is implementing existing law.

The executive branch implements existing law through regulation and programs. These laws touch the work of nearly every federal agency. For example:

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to work with states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane.

Energy policy laws require the Department of Energy to partner with the private sector to research, develop, and deploy clean energy technologies, and to set energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment.

The Department of Transportation is required to set standards that improve the fuel economy of motor vehicles.

The Department of Defense is required to plan for the global security consequences of climate change.

Many of the climate measures adopted by the Obama Administration are under review, and may be reversed, by the Trump Administration.

Federal courts interpret existing laws and provide a venue for states, industry and citizens to seek or challenge climate measures. A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions. How the courts handle these cases will affect industry, government, law, policy, and the environment.

C2ES works with federal policymakers to foster understanding of climate impacts and build support for practical solutions that benefit the environment and the economy. Learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal Action on Climate - Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the far-reaching nature of the climate challenge, effective federal policy is needed to achieve deep, long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and to help strengthen climate resilience across the U.S. economy. Even in the absence of a comprehensive federal approach, the federal government can help accelerate progress being made by cities, states, and companies.

# data[].attributes.body
An annotation is a summary and/or evaluation. Therefore, an annotated bibliography includes a summary and/or evaluation of each of the sources. Depending on your project or the assignment, your annotations may do one or more of the following.

Summarize: Some annotations merely summarize the source. What are the main arguments? What is the point of this book or article? What topics are covered? If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say? The length of your annotations will determine how detailed your summary is.
For more help, see our handout on paraphrasing sources.

Assess: After summarizing a source, it may be helpful to evaluate it. Is it a useful source? How does it compare with other sources in your bibliography? Is the information reliable? Is this source biased or objective? What is the goal of this source?
For more help, see our handouts on evaluating resources.

Reflect: Once you've summarized and assessed a source, you need to ask how it fits into your research. Was this source helpful to you? How does it help you shape your argument? How can you use this source in your research project? Has it changed how you think about your topic?