ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Understanding Critical Resource Extraction in the Arctic

    Understanding Critical Resource Extraction in the Arctic

    The Arctic Region

    The Arctic is the northernmost region of the Earth, centered on the North Pole. Most scientists define the Arctic as the area within the Arctic Circle, a line of latitude approximately 66.5° north of the Equator. The Arctic is home to more than 4 million people, including indigenous people such as the Saami, Aleut, and Yupik. The harsh climate and sparse population of the Arctic limited economic development until the impacts of climate change began to transform the environment. The effects of climate change in the Arctic are sobering. Scientists estimate the Arctic region is warming 4 times faster than the lower latitudes. The Arctic Report Card from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warns that climate change is transforming the Arctic dramatically.

    Climate Change Makes Critical Resource Extraction Possible

    As the permafrost of the Arctic region softens and the ice that normally covers the Arctic sea melts, it has become more feasible to access the resources of the Arctic. Currently, oil, natural gas, and coal are being extracted in the Arctic. The Arctic States are all signatories to the Paris Agreement, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, governments are supporting efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Renewable energy technologies run on critical minerals. The US Geological Survey has listed 50 critical minerals necessary to the renewable energy, technology, medical, and defense sectors. 

    Minerals include lithium and manganese, used in electric batteries, and tellurium, used in solar panels. The International Energy Agency projects that critical mineral demand will rise 6 times the current level by 2040. Many critical minerals are located in the Arctic. Although Arctic resources have many potential benefits, resource extraction in the Arctic can pose threats to indigenous people and the environment, disrupting cultures and ecosystems. The United Nations is working to mitigate those threats with an initiative called Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment by limiting marine litter and encouraging sustainable tourism and economic development in the region. 

    The American Arctic

    The state of Alaska is located in the Arctic, and geologists believe Alaska has deposits of 49 critical minerals. The Biden Administration published the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, which focuses on security, critical resources, climate, and society in the American Arctic. On March 13, 2023, President Biden authorized Conoco-Philips to drill for oil on land leased from the Federal Government. The Willow Project, located on the North Slope of Alaska, drew attention from Americans concerned about the environmental consequences of oil and gas extraction in Alaska. More than 5 million people signed a petition circulated by change.org to urge President Biden to halt the project. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska defended the project, and cited its potential for creating jobs for Native Alaskans.

    The Canadian Arctic 

    Nearly 40% of Canada’s territory is in the Arctic. The Canadian Arctic is rich in natural resources, including critical minerals and vast uranium deposits which can help increase nuclear energy to replace electricity generated by fossil fuels. The Canadian government produced a comprehensive critical mineral strategy and provided funding to support critical minerals projects. Together with its allies, Canada is committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement and to mining the Arctic sustainably. 

    The European Arctic

    The European Arctic States, along with the European Union, are planning to increase mining, shipping, and fishing activity in the Arctic to meet their climate and security goals. It is estimated that Greenland has 25% of the global reserves of critical minerals. In January 2023, LKAB, a Swedish mining company, announced it had discovered Europe’s largest deposit of critical minerals in Kiruna, Sweden. The European Union proposed the Critical Raw Materials Act to expedite critical minerals mining. Increased mining activity in the European Arctic has been criticized by the Saami, an indigenous population in the region, who fear it will disrupt their way of life. The University of Queensland in Australia developed an online tool to respond to these concerns and gather input on Arctic resource extraction from indigenous people, community leaders, scholars, and industry practitioners. 

    The United States and Allies Share Values and Goals in the Arctic

    New European Union Regulatory regimes like the Just Transition Fund, EU and the Critical Raw Materials Act help protect the environment and indigenous communities in the Arctic. Josep Borell, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European Union’s counterpart to the Secretary of State of the United States, stated, “The impact of climate change, security issues, and rivalries are growing in the Arctic regions. So is the need for cooperation and multilateral agreements.” Similarly, the US Arctic Strategy emphasizes the need to uphold international law and norms in the Arctic. The United States’ security framework in the Arctic helps the European Union and NATO achieve security in the region. Finally, the EU-Canada recent agreement on securing critical mineral supply chains supports developing critical raw material projects in Canada and the EU. It aligns European and Canadian financial support for critical mineral projects to leverage and de-risk private investments. Although some citizens have objected to resource extraction in the Arctic, the United States and its allies are partnering with private industry to speed extraction of rare earth elements, minimize environmental impact, and protect indigenous citizens. The growing importance of the Arctic is an example of how climate change is impacting foreign policy and necessitating closer cooperation between the United States, Canada, and the European Union to reduce harm to the region caused by climate change and increased activity.

  • Pros and Cons of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act

    Pros and Cons of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act

    Introduction

    The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) is a bill proposed in the United States Congress to promote competition in the digital marketplace by addressing antitrust concerns related to major technology companies. The bill aims to prevent monopolies and trusts by prohibiting dominant platforms from abusing their gatekeeping power, favoring their own products, and disadvantaging competitors. AICOA proposes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) enforce new antitrust and anticompetitive regulations. The regulations include:

    • Prohibiting dominant platforms from preventing other businesses’ products or services from interoperating with the platform
    • Prohibiting requiring a business to buy a dominant platform’s goods or services
    • Prohibiting preferential gatekeeping placement on its platform
    • Prohibiting misuse of a business’ data to compete 

    Specific qualifications are required for application of the AICOA. The legislation only applies to the largest online platforms, which must be a “website, online or mobile application, operating system, digital assistant, or online service.” Qualifying platforms must: 

    • Enable users to generate or interact with content, facilitate e-commerce, or enable user searches that display large volumes of information.
    • Have at least 50 million U.S. monthly users or 100,000 U.S.-based monthly active businesses. 
    • Have a market capitalization or a total U.S. net sales exceeding $550 billion, and serve as a “critical trading partner” for business users. The critical trading partner label signifies that the affected platforms can restrict or impede the ability of dependent companies to reach their customers.. 

    Background

    If enacted into law, the AICOA would affect most U.S. citizens. Companies such as Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta would be impacted. Almost half of Americans utilize an Apple iPhone, while almost 70% of adults use Meta (formerly known as Facebook). Further, almost half of the United States population uses Amazon Prime, and 70% of Americans, or 268 million individuals, shop online. The legislation aims to address issues raised in a 370-page report by the House Judiciary Committee in 2022 highlighting numerous anticompetitive practices in the digital marketplace. In 2022, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a national poll conducted by AXIS Research that indicated most Americans opposed the bill. The study reported that 79% of Republicans, 72% of Independents, and 59% of Democrats oppose or strongly oppose the AICOA.

    Opposition to AICOA

    Opponents of the bill state that it grants the FTC and DOJ too much regulatory power, and many free-market advocacy groups, such as Americans for Tax Reform and the Consumer Choice Center, publicly espoused this belief in a letter. They argue that the AICOA would enable the government to pick economic winners and losers. Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, echoed this stance and stated that the bill allows the FTC to decide what is lawful and to whom the law applies, and gives the ability to define what constitutes data, among many other powers. 

    The proposed regulations, according to opponents, would harm consumers more than they would benefit. Joshua Wright, a Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, emphasizes the importance of competition and differentiation in the marketplace. He states that ranking functions are not only desirable but that they are necessary and beneficial to the consumers. Experts such as Geoffrey Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), and Sam Bowman, Director of Competition Policy at the ICLE, seconded the previous statements. In an article, they labeled good digital platforms as “middlemen” that protect consumers by sorting through information to ensure that advertised products and businesses are not untrustworthy actors. Data corroborates these ideas, as users have been shown to prefer platforms that discriminate, like Amazon, over other, more chaotic platforms, such as eBay. 

    Opponents also point out unintended consequences of the bill, including limitations for U.S. businesses to compete globally and concerns about data privacy. Sean Heather, Senior Vice President of International Regulatory Affairs & Antitrust U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argues that American companies would be limited from competing internationally under the new regulations. The disadvantage, he claims, stems from the fact that American-owned companies would be subject to regulations while foreign entities in a similar position would not. He states that the bill would impose economic damages for conduct that most would regard as healthy competition, limit covered platforms’ ability to innovate, and force platforms to share data with rivals. Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, echoed this belief and claimed that the bill could “enable foreign rivals and cyber-criminals to access U.S. consumer data.” A provision in the AICOA makes it unlawful for covered platforms to impose limits on how other businesses access user data from consumers; however, these limits have been cited to help platforms protect consumers from fraud, abuse, and harassment. 

    Support for AICOA

    Proponents of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act argue that the strict language of the legislation will ensure that the government stays within its boundaries. Three digital policy scholars claim that any uncertainty in the language utilized in the bill, such as “materially harmed” and “competition,” will be resolved with the development of case law over time. They assert that the process for diminishing uncertainty with other laws is the same, so this bill will not grant any special powers. Further, the Congressional Research Service published a report that stated the “defenses appropriately place the burden to defend potentially anticompetitive conduct on platform operators, who have more information about their products than regulators.” Only State Attorneys General and federal agencies would have the power to file a suit, so they claim frivolous lawsuits would be avoided. 

    The same scholars voice the opinion that current antitrust laws are weak. They argue that the competition enforcement against large online platforms does not promote competition currently and needs to be increased. Experts such as Columbia University law professor Tim Wu reiterate the need for competition, writing that limited competition deters innovation and new business. A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) states that the proposed legislation will spark innovation and increase consumer choice by opening the market for new competitors to be seen by consumers. Partners at Winston and Strawn LLP concur, claiming that the AICOA will ensure that third-party sellers’ products will be seen. Organizations such as Small Business Rising, representing over 150,000 small businesses, agreed that the legislation was a “win for small businesses” that would ultimately promote innovation, new business, and third-party sellers. 

    Supporters also argue that the legislation would enhance online consumer choice. Currently, “small and medium companies have no practical option but to go through these big tech companies to reach their consumers;” however, this bill would prohibit the anticompetitive practices that force consumers to pay more for fewer choices. More than 60 companies publicly embraced this belief in a letter, stating that the legislation would unleash the creative power of thousands of smaller companies that would have never seen the light of day. 

  • Pros and Cons of the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act

    Pros and Cons of the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act

    Background

    President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in the 1970s, which was designed to tighten security over the regulation, consumption, offenses, and accessibility of controlled substances. The War on Drugs and increased prosecution of drug-related offenses have disproportionately impacted minority populations. Schedule 1 drugs—substances that are considered to have the greatest risk of abuse and addiction—are heavily regulated by the government with strict limitations on the accessibility and consumption of the substances. Possession and consumption of Schedule I substances are a federal offense, and cannabis is considered to be a Schedule I substance. The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act would decriminalize marijuana nationally and establish the Opportunity Trust Fund (OTF) funded by the increase in cannabis tax from 5 to 8 percent over a five-year period. Half of the fund is used to support communities in their professional development, health education, and for legal aid. The other half of OTF is used to support individuals and businesses through health education programs, literacy programs, and professional development.

    Issue 1: Implications of Cannabis

    While some studies have been conducted to better understand the relationship between cannabis and neurological conditions, physical conditions, and mental health disorders, the strict regulation of cannabis has prevented researchers from extensively investigating its therapeutic effects. The decriminalization of marijuana would allow researchers to conduct the investigations with amounts of marijuana that was not possible before. 

    However, opponents for the decriminalization of cannabis mention the overall greater use of the drug in general. With cannabis being decriminalized, public health experts have shared concerns regarding the implications of using more cannabis with a focus on high addiction rates, unsafe driving practices, and an overall decrease in wellbeing as a result of lower intelligence quotients. In the status quo, nearly 30% of people who use cannabis have a marijuana use disorder and a 10% chance of becoming addicted. In 2019, 4.7% of Americans drove under the influence of cannabis.

    Issue 2: Expenditure of Government Money

    By lifting some restrictions on cannabis use, the state and federal governments would save funding on the police, courts, and prisons currently used to incarcerate cannabis users and enforce cannabis restrictions. The reallocation of resources is expected to save nearly $800 million in the 2022-2023 period. The money could then be reallocated to other necessities for the government, including increasing federal benefit programs for federal prisoners. 

    Critics argue that the MORE Act has hidden costs, because government spending will be required to address the implications of the bill in the long run. The resulting drugged driving and increased marijuana use among the youth would push the government to reimagine other potential laws and restrictions.

    Issue 3: Businesses and Taxes

    The decriminalization of cannabis allows businesses to legally open under state regulations. Critics argue that while that MORE Act may increase jobs and financial security among businesses for cannabis, the increased prices for less potent products among legal businesses would drive cannabis users to turn to the black market for high-potency, less expensive alternatives. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee On Taxation estimate that in the 2022-2031 period, the U.S. revenue would increase by $8.1 billion. This would be accomplished by an occupational tax imposed on cannabis producers. The Small Business Administration would invest $1.4 billion for small businesses and for cannabis-licensing rules. A bill designed to decrease black market activity could possibly instigate a reallocation of financial resources among cannabis-related professions.

  • Understanding the Hazardous Air Pollution Debate

    Understanding the Hazardous Air Pollution Debate

    Background 

    Hazardous air pollution (HAP) is the contamination of the air by toxic pollutants that can cause serious health effects at high levels of concentration or exposure. While some release of HAPs can occur naturally, such as from forest fires, most comes from human activity and man-made sources. The largest sources are called stationary sources. These are mostly industry-related, consisting of fossil fuel-based power plants, factories, refineries, boilers, chemical manufacturing facilities, and steel mills. Mobile sources are also large HAP contributors. These include motor vehicles like cars, buses, and trucks, their fuels, and tailpipe emissions.  Additionally, indoor sources like chemical solvents, tobacco smoking, compounds like asbestos in building materials, and cleaning activities release large quantities of toxins into the air.

    Generally, HAPs can be divided into 3 categories:

    1. Gasses, like hydrogen chloride and substances found in gasoline, 
    2. Particles, such as mercury, lead compounds, and other heavy metals, and 
    3. Liquid aerosols, which include dry cleaning agents and industrial solvents.  

    Exposure and health effects 

    The primary mode of exposure to HAPs is through the inhalation of polluted air. However, exposure from secondary sources also contributes to human health effects. Toxins can enter the body from consuming contaminated food, water, and soil. Exposure can happen over short periods in peaks, such as through episodic events like wildfires or seasonal bouts of air pollution, or over extended periods like multiple years of living in the same place with a low level of exposure. Studies are currently looking into the potential cumulative increases in risk, but have found that long-term or chronic HAP exposure leads to more severe impacts. New research has also shown that mixed exposures, like particulate matter and ozone combined, have even greater health outcomes than individual exposures. The levels of exposure that can be deemed safe or not as severe vary by pollutant, though some toxins have no minimum thresholds below which adverse effects will not arise.

    Exposure to HAPs over long periods of time leads to the development of a variety of serious health effects, most seriously being reduced life expectancy or premature death. This depends on several factors such as the duration and frequency of exposure, level of toxicity of the HAP, and previous health status of the exposed individual. Young children and infants, pregnant people, and the elderly are generally considered to be the most vulnerable baseline populations at risk for diseases from HAP. Underlying health issues, poor nutrition, and stress can also all weaken the body’s immune system and make someone more susceptible to worse effects from HAP exposure. 

    HAP can lead to health issues like various forms of cancer (lung, throat, mouth, kidney, stomach, bone), coughing, difficulty breathing, asthma, irritation of eyes, breathing passages, and skin, pneumonia, nausea, and blood and liver abnormalities. It can also increase someone’s risk of stroke and heart attacks, while causing damage to the respiratory, nervous, cardiovascular, and reproductive systems. HAP exposure has also been linked with infertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, birth defects, low weight, and neurological developmental impairments of babies. In addition to directly causing the development of such health issues, HAP can leave people weakened to fight other diseases and infections. 

    People living in urban areas or in locations near industrial facilities face the greatest risk of health effects from HAP exposure. They suffer from a higher concentration of air quality-degrading sources, particularly from road emissions and industrial accidents. Studies have found that the more urban an area becomes, the lower the air quality becomes from HAP exposure. Additionally, low-income people and people of color are most likely to live near industrial areas and are exposed to toxic air pollutants at higher rates. In the US, people of color are 3.6 times more likely than white people to live in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Socioeconomic and health inequities such as limited access to healthcare also exacerbate the effects of HAP for these communities. 

    Environmental effects 

    The build-up of pollutants in the air and atmosphere contributes to issues like climate change and biodiversity degradation. The release of HAPs from various human activities traps heat in the atmosphere. Consequences from this ensuing global atmospheric change include temperature alterations, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, increased flooding, and intensified storms. 

    HAP contamination of air and waterways has also been linked to the impairment of biological processes in species, like immune function and reproduction, the disruption of crucial steps in the water cycle such as condensation and evaporation, and interference with other natural processes in ecosystems. The deterioration of soil nutrient health, accumulation of toxins in food chains, and direct damage to plants and animals also affect forest health and overall longevity of ecosystem and species population longevity. 

    Reducing emissions and the role of government 

    Mitigating HAP largely involves reducing emissions of toxins in the three major sources categories: mobile, stationary, and indoor. The government primarily targets these areas of concern through legislative measures with federal enforcement, such as by implementing strict emissions standards and penalties for noncompliance. Local initiatives and voluntary programs also exist to address emission reduction on a smaller scale. 

    Most federal regulation of air pollution falls under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since its establishment in 1970, levels of air pollution in the US have decreased substantially, though they still remain at unhealthy concentrations. To mitigate this, the EPA has initiated numerous legislative efforts, like setting regularly updated standards for pollutants. In one example, the EPA established the Air Quality Index (AQI), a guide for determining air quality in the US. With differing values that represent levels of concentration of HAPs and potential health concerns, the AQI helps identify which pollutants need to be most imminently reduced. 

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) (1963) is the primary piece of federal legislation on air quality, and serves as the legal basis for EPA regulations reducing air pollution. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which determine allowable atmospheric levels of six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ground-level ozone, lead, and particle matter. These toxins were the first to be recognized as in need of national standards by the EPA. The NAAQS are health-based and split into two types: primary and secondary. Primary standards focus on protecting public health, and secondary standards focus on protecting public welfare, including the environment. For both types, standards for the six HAPs are revised every 5 years in a process that reviews the scientific backing behind each standard and the standards themselves.

    The CAA also sets the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which codified its list of 187 air pollutants officially designated as HAPs in a major 1990 amendment. These are all pollutants not included in the NAAQS that are still considered the greatest threats to air quality and public health, such as formaldehyde and lead, and they have limits set by the NESHAP. Under this criteria, the EPA regulates emissions from pollutants on the list in a two-phase plan, beginning with technology-based standards targeting industry sources and following with additional risk-based standards if needed. While the list is expansive and has changed throughout the years, it is not all-encompassing—pollutants not included on the list may also pose health risks. 

    Moving forward: results and critiques 

    Major debates surrounding HAP mostly involve regulatory practices and challenges to pieces of legislation. Since its passing in 1970, the CAA has lowered emission levels of the six criteria pollutants by 78%. This has led to widespread public health benefits, such as extended life expectancy, reduced risk of cancer and lung-related diseases. Between 1970 and 2020, HAP regulations are estimated to have prevented 230,000 premature deaths from air pollution, in addition to almost 2.5 million asthma complications and 135,000 HAP-related hospital visits. Since 1991, all 41 areas across the country that faced toxic levels of carbon monoxide concentrations also now meet health standards and continue to improve on a yearly basis.

    Nonetheless, the act has been subject to critique. One concern is that the CAA is expensive and its cumulative costs are underestimated. In 2020 alone, the economic benefits associated with preventing premature deaths from air pollution was estimated at $2 trillion, compared to implementation costs of $65 billion. Reduced ecological damage from HAPs has also benefited the agricultural sector; less soil nutritional damage leads to greater and healthier crop yields, which has an estimated cost of $5.5 billion in benefits.

    Other critiques concerning harm to the nation’s economy come from states and utilities, who seek greater leeway in regulation and argue that the agency’s powers are too expansive. In one example, state leaders may oppose air control regulation that, if unfollowed, may cost a state its federal funding for highways—even if pollutants can cross over state-lines from other parts of the country. Industries like motor vehicle and power companies have also challenged EPA emission standards in court, claiming that regulations were too stringent.

    Conclusion

    As hazardous air pollution persists from man-made sources like fossil fuel-based industrial facilities and vehicles, toxic pollutants continue to pose significant challenges to the environment and human health. Significant progress has been made thanks to legislative measures like the CAA, which has decreased the levels of a range of pollutants, prevented widespread health consequences, and saved trillions of dollars. But while air pollution has decreased in the past several decades, work still remains to be done. 4 in 10 Americans still live in regions with toxic levels of pollutants, and marginalized communities remain disproportionately affected.

    More about this Research Area
  • Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Introduction to the New Transatlantic Agenda

    Background

    Following the Second World War, the United States and Western European powers have built a strong relationship based on shared values such as democracy, free trade, and human rights, culminating in the New Transatlantic Agenda. The New Transatlantic Agenda was an agreement signed between the US and the EU in 1995, which outlined commitments for increased bilateral trade, shared foreign policy visions, and combating global issues like climate change. The US Department of State summarized the following goals:  

    • promoting peace, development, and democracy around the world
    • responding to global challenges
    • contributing to the expansion of world trade and closer economic ties
    • building bridges across the Atlantic by encouraging closer communication between people

    Effects

    The non-binding agreement marked the beginning of contemporary US and EU relations. In the decades following the NTA, the US and the EU have maintained many of these promises.

    Since the signing of the NTA, embassies have been created on both sides. The US mission to the EU is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium and the EU delegation to the US is located in Washington D.C..

    Pro-NTA

    Those in favor of expanding the relationship between the US and EU see the shared values and pursuits between the two as mutually beneficial. Some may also see the alliance between the US and EU as acting as a global stronghold to defend these values, establishing what is sometimes referred to as the “liberal international order”, as opposed to other rising powers in the world including Russia and China.

    Anti-NTA

    Others do not view deepening the US-EU alliance as beneficial to the US. While the European Union is home to many of the world’s most advanced economies, economic growth has been slow in recent decades in comparison to other trading partners. Some believe the US should prioritize relations, especially trade relations, with rapidly growing economics like Brazil and India, and focus on countries with sectors and resources which are strategically important, like Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. In addition, the US has historically shouldered much of the burden for defense spending in Europe through NATO, so prioritizing the relationship does have tangible costs.

  • Food Security and Local Food Production

    Food Security and Local Food Production

    Background

    Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system. 

    Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart. 

    There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

       USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

    Food Accessibility

    Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people. 

    Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses. 

    There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security. 

    A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability. 

    At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa. 

    Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

    Food Resiliency

    Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. 

    The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods. 

    There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them. 

    Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole. 

    There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as  outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood. 

  • Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    While absentee voting in the United States can be traced back to the Civil War Era, the Pandemic created an unprecedented demand for absentee ballots as an alternative to traditional polling locations. Absentee voting or voting by mail is a process that allows voters to cast their ballots before election day either by dropping off or mailing in a completed ballot. Absentee voting has recently found itself at the center of election skepticism and denialism that is becoming an increasingly prominent part of our political climate. This was arguably most prominent during the 2020 election year, as approximately 70% of the 50 million votes cast were absentee. This increased use of absentee voting combined led to new discussions about election security implications, and resulted in a largely mixed record when it comes to absentee voting policies. While some states are attempting to make absentee voting more accessible, others believe absentee voting poses election integrity concerns, and want to restrict access to the process. 

    Arguments in Favor of Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Many laws that restrict absentee voting access aim to improve election security by ensuring only registered voters cast ballots. This is accomplished primarily through requiring stricter voter ID laws. Proponents argue that absentee ballots could provide a loophole for non eligible citizens to vote, as mail-in ballots are subject to less scrutiny than traditional voting. In particular, advocates of these laws often intend stricter policies to prevent non-citizens (including permanent legal residents), as well as those with certain felony convictions from casting an absentee ballot. One argument in favor of more restrictive laws is that these policies will signal greater election security to voters, and this will increase their faith in elections and in turn inspire them to participate in the democratic process. Proponents of ID absentee requirements argue that voters have little incentive to trust in the democratic process if illegitimate votes are cast and their voice is not prioritized. Supporters point to mistrust in elections as proof that these measures are necessary. For example, a 2020 poll found that 38% of Americans reported lacking confidence in election fairness. Proponents argue that if voters know elections are fair this will incentivize their participation. 

    Another argument typically proposed for more restrictive ID requirements for absentee ballots is that these requirements are routine for government procedures, and therefore should not pose an unnecessary burden on citizens who are eligible to vote. The reasoning is that presenting these identifying documents is commonplace, and the process of voting should not be less secure than procedures such as operating a vehicle. Proponents of these laws claim to prioritize increased voter security. Lastly, many Republican lawmakers argue that Democrats advocate for easier access to absentee voting for partisan gain. They point to the last presidential election as evidence of this, as a Pew Research poll found 58% of Biden voters voted by absentee, compared to only 32% of Trump voters. This partisan disparity is likely due to former President Trump discouraging his voters from mailing in absentee ballots, and public health concerns during the pandemic which followed some political lines. However, there was still a partisan divide in voting format in 2022, as Democrats cast more absentee ballots than Republicans. Critics argue that Democrats are simply trying to ensure more democratic leaning voters are able to vote in order to win elections. 

    Arguments Against Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Conversely, advocates of increased access to absentee voting argue that its convenience will increase turnout, particularly for groups that are least likely to vote like voters under 25 and voters of color. Proponents of this idea point to studies such as a Tufts voting law analysis that found youth voter turnout was highest (57%) and had the largest increase since 2016 in states that automatically mailed ballots to voters. Additionally this study found that the average youth voter turnout for states with the most restrictive absentee voting policies was significantly lower than other states. Similarly, an analysis of Colorado’s all mail in voting policy found that the largest increase in turnout following the institution of the policy was observed in the state’s Asian American and African American populations. Proponents of these laws argue absentee voting is proven to help bring formerly disenfranchised communities to the ballot box. Finally, some worry that more restrictive ID laws will disproportionately impact minority communities. They point to evidence such as a study examining Texas’ institution of more restrictive voter ID laws that show the majority of voters that were barred from turning in a mail in ballot were disproportionately African American and Latinx. Other studies also found that stricter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Some believe that this disproportionate burden is indicative of racist sentiments, and absentee voting can facilitate more equitable civic engagement. 

    Additionally, many emphasize the infrastructural and practical problems that in person voting creates on election day, and consider this a reason to expand absentee ballots. The reasoning is that voters will anticipate problems like wait times and this ultimately disincentives voting. Proponents of this idea point to sources such as a Brennan Center for Justice article that found 3 million people waited in voting lines that exceeded 30 minutes in 2018. Additionally, a 2022 poll found that 61% of Americans said they did not vote because they would have to vote in person. Common grievances with in person voting included issues such as few voting hours outside of the workday, long wait times, and inability to get to a polling place. Proponents of expanded access to absentee voting point out that increased use of mail in ballots would alleviate many of these infrastructural issues.  

    Lastly, those who support increased access to absentee voting point out that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud, and therefore more restrictive measures such as requiring ID for absentee ballots simply make voting more difficult and disincentivize voters from participating. Numerous studies, including one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed the claims of election denialism candidates and found that none of these claims had factual basis. 

    As a developed nation with some of the worst rates of voter participation , American lawmakers and activists face the difficult challenge of engaging an increasingly diversifying public.While some believe increased absentee voting is the solution to increasing civic engagement, others find it to be a dangerous and counterproductive strategy.

  • Understanding the Access to STD Resources and Healthcare Debate

    Understanding the Access to STD Resources and Healthcare Debate

    What are Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)?

    Also known as sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are “infections that are passed from one person to another through sexual contact”. While there are more than 20 types, the eight most common in 2018 included chlamydia, genital herpes, HIV, HPV, syphilis, trichomoniasis, and hepatitis B. STDs can be symptomatic or asymptomatic, and STDs caused by bacteria or parasites are easier to treat because antibiotics are effective remedies. Viruses, on the other hand, cannot be treated and medications can only be used to mitigate the spread and severity of symptoms. Preventative measures include latex condoms (although condom usage remains low), regular screenings, and vaccines for HPV (the most common type of STD) and hepatitis B. 

    Rates of STD transmission remain high throughout the United States, and disproportionately affect gay and bisexual men as well as Black and Hispanic populations. In 2018, 20% of Americans were infected with an STD, totaling out to 68 million infections by the end of the year. Those within the 15-24 year-old age group comprised 46% of those cases. STD cases are increasing; as are the healthcare costs associated with treating STD patients. In direct costs alone, spending amounted to $16 billion in 2021. It is crucial to treat STDs early because untreated diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis can lead to ectopic pregnancies and fertility issues for women and a higher risk of contracting HIV. 

    Current Financial Coverage for STD Resources and Healthcare

    Medicaid is the largest financial contributor to reproductive healthcare coverage. Medicaid is also the largest public funder of HIV treatment and care. In 2014 and 2015, data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care survey indicated that compared to other payment sources, Medicaid disproportionately covers services for individuals that are most likely to need STD care, which is usually those who are younger, female, minorities, part of the LGBTQ+ community, people with disabilities, and those of lower socioeconomic status. In 2020, 37 states and the District of Columbia made STI screenings and counseling, preventative vaccinations, and PrEP eligible for coverage under Medicaid. 

    Medicare provides healthcare financing to those who are 65+ and/or have long-term disabilities. Part B covers “STI screenings for chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and/or hepatitis B once every 12 months for individuals at increased risk for an STI or at certain times during pregnancy for pregnant individuals”. It also covers one HIV screening per year, and Part D covers all approved antiretrovirals (with potential for cost sharing). Under the Affordable Care Act, private health insurance plans are mandated to cover recommended preventative services (HIV, other STI screenings, and prescriptive contraceptives for women) with no cost sharing. Uninsured individuals can receive care from health clinics and departments that are federally funded by agencies like HRSA, the CDC, and the Office of Population Affairs (OPA). 

    Title X

    Title X, created in 1970, is a program for low-income individuals to obtain affordable birth control and reproductive healthcare. Wellness exams, birth control, contraception education, and testing/treatment for STDs and HIV are all provided. Participating clinics like Planned Parenthood, federally qualified health centers (FHQs), and state and county health departments receive federal funding for services of this nature. In 2019, the Trump administration passed the Title X gag rule. This effectively banned physicians associated with the program from providing patients with information about abortion. Other services were also affected by this decision–Title X’s network patient capacity was reduced by half, Planned Parenthood could no longer serve 40% of the program’s four million patients, and six states lost Title X providers entirely. The original provisions of the Title X program were reinstated by the Biden administration in 2021. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Right to Contraception Act & Financial Coverage of Contraceptives

    The Right to Contraception Act was introduced in summer 2022 with the objective of protecting “a person’s ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception”. This bill also argues that access to contraception is a fundamental human right, that it is essential to one’s ability to participate equally in economic and social life (especially for marginalized populations), and that it is vital to sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, it acknowledges that some states have attempted to associate contraceptives with the definition of abortion.

    The bill would grant individuals the statutory right to obtain and engage in contraception, for healthcare professionals to provide “contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception” (codifying the right to contraception nationwide), and for the Justice Department to take contraception restrictions to court. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, legislators have begun to explore codifying other policies, like access to contraception, which were not viewed as necessary before. 

    Arguments Against the Right to Contraception Act & Financial Coverage of Contraceptives

    Some in opposition argue that the legislation violates states’ rights to regulate their own healthcare policy and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which “establishes balancing test courts can use when deciding religious-liberty cases involving federal laws and regulations”. There is also concern because the bill does not list any age restrictions, making protections for minors more difficult. 

    There is also concern that the bill is a “Trojan horse for more abortions”. It would grant a federal right to use the abortion drug Mifepristone (which has both contraceptive and non-contraceptive uses). The legislation would also prohibit states and the federal government from cutting off taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood, and abortion services are offered by Planned Parenthood subject to state regulation. 

    In September 2022, the state of Texas was taken to court by a group of residents and employees over the Affordable Care Act. They argued that mandating the coverage of preventative care violated their religious freedoms and that health plans covering screenings for STDs and HIV prevention drugs should not be required because it will “facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use”. Judge Reed O’Connor’s final ruling was that “compulsory coverage for [these] services violates [employers’] religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior and [illegal] drug use”. Therefore, Texas insurers no longer have to cover PrEP (prevents transmission of the HIV virus), contraception, HPV vaccines, and screenings/behavioral counseling for illicit drugs and STDs. 

    What Happened to the Right to Contraception Act?

    The Right to Contraception Act ultimately passed the House of Representatives with a 228-195 vote. In July 2022, Senators Patty Murray and Edward Markey sought unanimous consent to get the Right to Contraception Act passed, but it was blocked by Senator Joni Ernst. As a result, the bill died because “Legislation not passed by the end of a Congress (in this case, from January 3rd, 2021 to January 3rd, 2023 in the 117th Congress) is cleared from the books”. Today, this question remains: should contraceptives continue to be publicly and privately funded, or should access be regulated on a state level?

  • Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Pros and Cons of 2023 NATO Military Aid to Ukraine

    Introduction

    The North Atlantic Trade Organization, NATO, has maintained a strong relationship with Ukraine since the 1990s. NATO allies uphold that Ukrainian sovereignty is a shared security goal. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 furthered cooperation, especially through the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP). This aid package has aimed to improve Ukraine’s security and defense sectors through military improvement programs. Since Russia’s February, 2022 invasion, NATO has been a crucial partner in organizing support and aid for Ukraine. Aid includes both lethal and non-lethal aid, from medical aid to bullets to armed troops. However, the scope of aid from NATO lies mostly in weapons as Ukraine cannot invoke the necessary articles to request troops because it is not a NATO member. Individual countries have also provided substantial aid and implemented sanctions against Russia. 

    NATO Aid in 2023

    • January 20th: NATO announced a joint effort with the United States to provide air defenses and armored vehicles. This is seen as crucial support to counter frequent Russian missile attacks.
    • February 7th: Denmark, Germany, and Netherlands announced the Leo A5 Initiative to give Ukraine 100 Leopard 1 A5 battle tanks and training. This in addition to recent agreements from Germany to supply Leopard 2 tanks. Both Leopard tanks are easy to use and train soldiers to operate. 
    • February 8th: NATO leadership disclosed in a press conference that NATO allies are sending additional aid including armored infantry vehicles, Javelin anti tank missiles, artillery, ammunition, and rockets for HIMARs, an American rocket launcher.

    US and Other Support

    The United States has given the most aid thus far to Ukraine. The Biden Administration has announced three major military aid packages:

    • January 6th: The Biden Administration committed to a $3.075 billion security package including artillery rounds and ammunition, air defense capabilities, and armored vehicles. The package includes financing towards capacity building and modernization of Ukraine’s Army.   
    • February 3rd: The Biden Administration authorized a Presidential Drawdown of $425 million and $1.75 billion in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). USAI allows the federal government to procure materials or weapons from industry rather than Department of Defense supplies, allowing the government to maintain support without depleting US military supplies.     
    • March 3rd: The Secretary of State announced a $400 million aid package to Ukraine including ammunition, equipment, and air defense capabilities. 

    Aid from Europe

    • The European Union has provided lethal aid for the first time in its history. Recent aid has included arms and military training. 
    • Other individual countries have sent aid and support to Ukraine. Finland, a country seeking to join NATO, announced a $400 million package on January 20th which included heavy artillery and munitions.

    Key Benefits

    US support for Ukraine indicates to American allies that the United States upholds its security promises. The war in Ukraine has revitalized defense efforts from European countries and caused them to increase their contributions to NATO. The increased cooperation has strengthened both diplomatic and military trust between European nations through organizations like NATO and the EU. In addition, as European nations turn away from Russian oil and gas imports, nations are potentially increasing the use of alternative, low emission energy sources like solar and wind that are better for the environment. As a result, European nations may achieve their climate and clean energy goals sooner than expected.  

    Key Concerns 

    There are noted concerns from policymakers and the larger American population, alike, about funding a war without a clear end. 

    • With fears of a recession, some may believe the current flow of aid may be unsustainable for the US government long term. American military spending annually outpaces any other government, and continued aid may be unsustainable politically.  
    • The greatest concern for NATO allies is the implications of escalation. US and Russian leaders have discussed nuclear weapons. Concerns about avoiding escalation informed the decision not to enact a no-fly zone over Ukraine. A no-fly zone would have effectively prevented air strikes but global leadership feared risking nuclear retaliation from Russia.   
    • US spending on Ukraine could have implications for other potential conflicts such as the ability to respond if China moves to forcibly reclaim Taiwan, which remains a national security concern.    

    The Future 

    The end of the war in Ukraine is so far uncertain, but there are moments for hope for peace in Ukraine. There are many calls for peace talks and a ceasefire as casualties continue to rise, which include a recent UN resolution that calls for an immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. The General Assembly has voted to successfully pass the resolution, which may carry political consequences for Russia and their allies. The resolution is a declaration of the General Assembly’s will or opinion, and not legally binding. However, the resolution may be used to encourage a ceasefire, peace talks, or even justify continued aid in the future. 

  • Understanding the Affirmative Action Debate in Higher Education

    Understanding the Affirmative Action Debate in Higher Education

    Background

    Affirmative action refers to policies which seek to positively discriminate towards racial, ethnic, gender, or other groups that may be underrepresented or have been discriminated against in the past. In the U.S. affirmative action is typically used in the admissions process of higher education institutions to help increase racial diversity at universities. 

    Though race-based affirmative action has existed since the 1960s, its presence has grown over the several decades with it now being outlawed in 9 states, largely through ballot measures. Affirmative action policies are currently federally legal based on the precedent of Supreme Court cases Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas II (2013). The Supreme Court established limitations such as banning ‘quotas’, or setting aside a specific number of seats for certain minority groups (per Bakke), as well as awarding large amounts of bonus points to applicants with certain racial identities (per Gratz). Furthermore, courts have taken the stance that although increasing diversity and reducing discrimination in admissions is important, universities should seek out easier, more effective ways to achieve those goals aside from affirmative action.

    Policies can be enacted at the public level, or in private institutions. In the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (a private college), and v. University of North Carolina (a public one) the difference between private and public is a key consideration in allowing the use of race-based affirmative action policies. Since the universities here both use race-based affirmative action policies, and they both receive some sort of federal funding (Harvard less so than public school UNC), they are being challenged for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by allegedly discriminating against Asian and White applicants in favor of applicants from more underrepresented groups.

    Arguments in Favor

    Arguments in favor largely center around the importance of racial diversity on college campuses, and affirmative action’s essential role in supporting it. Some focus on remediation, or rather the use of positive discrimination to help rectify a history of inequality that could pose difficulty in certain minority groups being adequately represented. For example, Black students were traditionally excluded from many institutions of higher education. Although those policies were reversed, current generations may find it harder to be accepted in race-blind admissions programs because they don’t have the benefit of generational knowledge or legacy admissions. Others point to statistics showing minority groups are underrepresented at universities in states where affirmative action has been banned, such as California. For example, underrepresented minorities made up more than half of UCLA’s admitted students in 1995, and dropped to 24% after affirmative action was banned in 1998. 

    Legally, supporters also argue that affirmative action is the best available and most ‘narrowly tailored’ (accomplishes only the original goal of the policy) solution to underrepresentation in this sphere.

    Arguments in Opposition

    Many who oppose affirmative action still value racial diversity in higher education. However, they assert that although there has been discrimination that challenges minority applicants, affirmative action’s discrimination against Asian and White applicants who bear no blame for their counterpart’s difficulties is unjustified. Meanwhile, others note representation steadily improving in recent years even in states without affirmative action. California’s 2022 admitted student rates are often cited:

    • 5.7% Black (from 4.9% 5 years prior and compared to 5.6% of CA college-aged residents)
    • 0.6% American Indian (from 0.5% 5 years prior and compared to 0.3% of CA college-aged residents)
    • 37% Latino (from 33% 5 years prior and compared to 50.1% of CA college-aged residents).

    Many believe affirmative action policies prevent schools from simply admitting the students with the most merit, which could elevate racial tensions. Additionally, with a history of voters rejecting affirmative action policies at the state level, many tout public polls which show a majority lack support. Lastly, opponents posit that there are better alternatives to promote diversity at college campuses that are less legally controversial, such as a focus on socioeconomic status instead of race, increased college recruitment and outreach, or automatically admitting the top n% of high school graduates.

    Looking Ahead

    Race-based affirmative action in higher education admissions has perhaps never been more topical than it is right now with its fate in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. The current conservative-dominated court is seen as a major opportunity to dismantle affirmative action nationally. If it is dismantled, other programs that work towards the same goals will likely develop.