Kidnappings, displacement, and deaths were just a few of the daily experiences of many rural farmers during the 52 years that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, controlled the countryside. The FARC was founded in 1946 to overthrow the government and to represent Colombia’s rural poor. By the end of its reign, FARC had terrorized the countryside, hurting the very people it was meant to help and represent. 

After half a century of violence, Colombia’s Peace Deal with the FARC promised to bring a period of stability and peace for the country. While the nation’s transition from conflict to peace is one to celebrate, how effective has the Peace Deal actually been?

Former President Santos and ex-FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez shake hands after signing the Peace Deal in Bogota, Colombia. Photograph: Luis Robayo/AFP/Getty Images

Decades of violence had destabilized rural communities, including their food security. In an effort to address this issue, the Peace Deal aimed to redistribute land to small-scale farmers who were forced to flee and improve food production and distribution methods. Unfortunately, little has been done to improve rural development, bring aid to those most affected, or to halt the violence.

One of the groups waiting for the Peace Deal’s promised help is the 6.4 million farmers who were forcibly displaced during the war between FARC and the government. During FARC’s reign, many rural farms were commandeered to supply cocaine that was used by the rebel group to finance their rebellion. Small-scale farmers, pressured to produce coca plants, the raw material for cocaine, halted the production of food crops. Economic incentives and lack of government trust kept many farmers in the coca production. Those who continued producing legal crops were forcibly displaced, as violence destroyed road infrastructure, irrigation systems, and prevented farmers from distributing and receiving crops. Many have yet to return, despite being promised that millions of abandoned hectares would be redistributed. As of 2017, only 5,400 of 106,000 requests for land have been processed. 

Even if displaced subsistence farmers were to return, many would have to face the crop that forced them out of their land in the first place. Under the Peace Deal, the government promised to eradicate drug production, yet production peaked in 2017. Approximately 423,000 acres of land grew coca, a 23% increase from the year before, yielding 1,520 tons of cocaine, a 31% increase from 2016. This increase occurred despite aggressive eradication efforts, like aerial spraying, and crop substitution programs to provide an alternative to coca production. Most alternative crops offered by the government, like pepper and heart of palms, would cut farmer’s profits by half, leaving farmers even poorer than before. 

Where the Peace Deal has been most successful is in disarming FARC. More than 6,804 FARC members have disarmed, and more than 8,994 weapons were surrendered. But as FARC demobilized, other rebel groups have taken their place, creating new challenges. The National Liberal Army (ELN), for example, continues to seize control of rural areas. 

Escaping violence continues to be a daily struggle. Since the Peace Deal was signed, 500 community activists have been killed and more than 200,000 people displaced from their homes by rural violence. Had the government been able to deploy police forces and include other rebel groups in the Peace Deal it could have protected the lives of innocent civilians who have been caught in the crossfire for way too long. 

It’s clear that the road to recovery is far from over. Efforts to implement the goals of the Peace Deal, such as providing reparations to war victims and investing in rural areas, have been halted under Iván Duque, the current president of Colombia. Mr. Duque has been a very public opponent of the Peace Deal, who has tried to change the terms of the agreement. While revisions to the agreement are unlikely, Duque has appointed members that oppose the Peace Deal to implement the agreement. This has left budgets for rural areas underfunded, as well as slowing down the government’s progress to fulfill its commitments.

While the Peace Deal successfully ended decades of war with FARC, investments in infrastructure, social services, and ensuring security in the countryside have not followed. Mr.Duque needs not only to commit to the Peace Deal in principle, he needs to commit to it in practice, providing the necessary funding and support, to finally bring an end to the violent hauntings of the past. Colombia needs peace, but with justice.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment made headlines in recent weeks for sounding alarm bells about current and future effects of climate change. It’s a strong reminder to consider the most effective solutions. Environmental organizations have long advocated for climate change solutions. But last summer, I learned that some of these organizations may not be doing the most they can do. While tabling at an event for the environmental non-profit I was interning with, I encountered a peculiar young man. He had stopped by our table to learn about the organization’s priorities and the action items available for passersby to take. He pulled out his pen, seemingly happy to fill out a postcard urging Massachusetts legislators to strengthen a renewable energy policy. But after asking a clarifying question on the policy at hand, he put his pen back in his pocket, and walked away.

Why? The policy targeted on the postcard, Massachusetts’s renewable portfolio standard, omitted nuclear energy. I asked myself: isn’t nuclear energy unsafe? Or too expensive? And what about the risk for nuclear proliferation? Anti-nuclear energy sentiments are well-known; nuclear energy has a bad reputation. Yet, this man was disgruntled to learn that RPS policy excludes nuclear energy. I sought an explanation. Ultimately, this interaction fueled a curiosity in me, and caused me to start thinking differently about energy solutions designed to address climate change.

Under the old RPS law, electricity providers in Massachusetts were required to derive 13 percent of their electricity in 2018 from renewable sources such as wind and solar. That percentage was to increase by one percent annually. But, many environmentalists argued that that growth was not enough to meet the mandatory carbon emissions goals outlined in Massachusetts’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The postcards were asking legislators to support a 2 or 3 percent yearly increase to achieve reductions of 80 percent below statewide 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 2050—the GWSA goal. Ultimately, the state legislature increased the percentage to two percent in July of 2018. It was a seeming victory in the fight against climate change.

Well, not quite. Nuclear energy remained off the list of eligible sources of electricity, and that’s a real loss for Massachusetts. Because of one person who refused to sign an RPS postcard, I did my research. What I learned convinced me that nuclear energy can work wonders for a carbon-constrained world. I also learned that there is an important distinction between clean and renewable energy. Clean simply indicates that the energy source produces very low levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Renewable energies are therefore also considered to be clean energies. But not all kinds of clean energy are renewable. Although nuclear energy is a clean energy, because it does not produce direct carbon emissions, it isn’t considered renewable because there are finite amounts of uranium deposits (the fuel for nuclear power) on earth.

Massachusetts, along with the 29 other states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have adopted RPS programs, need to move away from the narrow focus on renewables. More attention should be paid to the promises of nuclear energy because renewables are not enough to substantially reduce carbon emissions alone. A recent MIT study concludes that a clean and dispatchable energy source is necessary if we want to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on time. Renewable energy isn’t dispatchable (it is not readily available whenever it is needed) but importantly, nuclear energy is. If clean energy portfolio standards were adopted and nuclear energy embraced in electricity portfolios, then utilities would have more of an incentive to look at nuclear energy as a way to adhere to the law and as a way to reduce carbon emissions. Under current RPS programs, nuclear energy innovation is stifled and the promises of nuclear fly under the radar.

Including nuclear energy in energy portfolio standards could also help halt the trend of shuttering U.S. nuclear power plants. Massachusetts’s own Pilgrim nuclear power plant is set to close by June of next year. With this closure, Massachusetts will lose more low-carbon energy in one day than all low-carbon energy that was added by the solar and wind energy industries in the past 20 years. That’s not something to take lightly.

As for concerns about safety, cost, and nuclear proliferation, we can set those aside. What few people realize is that nuclear power has a better safety record compared to other sources of electricity. The newest generation of nuclear reactors are designed with the best safety and security measures. And, innovations in construction and design are likely to make nuclear less costly in the future.

Renewables alone cannot solve climate change. It’s a dangerous myth. In light of recent climate change studies, we need to consider all options. Right now, we aren’t considering all the possibilities—specifically, we aren’t considering nuclear energy. Before we can, we need to change our attitudes on nuclear. A good first step in achieving this would be adding nuclear energy in with the renewables that are already widely accepted by the public.

For some students at the National University of Singapore, a recent campus policy banning plastic straws was the greatest struggle they had experienced in their lives – so much so that they protested against it. In true millennial fashion, students posted images of themselves happily using plastic straws on Instagram. One student claimed to have purchased 1,000 plastic straws purely to throw into the trash. These incredibly creative (and wasteful!) forms of dissent against straw bans may draw a lot of attention, but they don’t mean much. These spoiled brats are not actually getting at what is wrong with it, and they definitely aren’t getting at what’s right with it either.

Let’s face it, plastic straw bans are necessary due to the scale of the global plastic waste problem. It is estimated that more than 250,000 tons of plastic are currently in the world’s oceans. Environmental advocates see straw bans as the start of a larger campaign. Straws are just at the tip of the whole plastic-berg, but it works extremely well as a “gateway plastic”: banning it can raise awareness and lead to stronger action on all single-use plastics. Voluntarily decreasing our plastic use wouldn’t cut it at this point, and frankly, many of us can afford to be inconvenienced for the sake of the environment. Therefore, the straw ban.

The real problem with straw bans lies less in their expected environmental impact, and more in their speed of implementation. The National University of Singapore students had only a day’s notice before the ban went into full effect – no wonder there was a backlash! This is an extreme example, but many of the recently implemented straw bans leave little time for transition. California’s ban allows only a single year of transition time between its enactment in 2018 and full implementation in 2019. Taiwan also announced this year that food and beverage outlets must stop providing straws in store by 2019, giving retailers just one year to adjust. Campus, city, or country, there is an emphasis not just to get rid of plastic straws, but to get rid of them swiftly.

With haste comes mistakes – and arguably similar backlash – every time a new plastic straw ban gets implemented. Firstly, there is consistent concern over how plastic straw bans harm people with disabilities. Plastic straws are currently the best option for many people with disabilities to drink out of cups. Alternatives have disadvantages: metal straws cannot be used for hot beverages, and paper straws disintegrate way too quickly. People with disabilities have often not been consulted as the bans have been created. In Seattle, the Seattle Commission for People with DisAbilities (which advises Seattle’s city agencies on disability issues) was not consulted at all before a plastic straw ban was passed in the city. Even though eateries were allowed to give disposable and flexible plastic straws to customers who need them for physical or medical reasons, straws are often still unavailable on request. Shaun Bickley, the co-chair of the commission, asked over a dozen Seattle chain restaurants “if they had plastic straws available for people with allergies or need, and they told me no.”

Secondly, plastic straw bans disproportionately affect small retailers, who scramble to find cost-effective alternatives on short notice. Take for example bubble tea retailers. For the uninitiated, straws are part of the experience with bubble tea – a wide straw is used to suck up tapioca pearls from the bottom of the cup. As a bubble tea shop owner was quoted by USAToday, “a lot of people in the bubble tea world aren’t particularly wealthy.” Paper straws are much more expensive than plastic straws. CEO of food packaging supplier PacknWood Adam Merran stated in CNBC that paper straws cost 10 times more than plastic straws: 2½ cents for paper, compared with a half-cent for plastic. Paper straws are also often impractical for bubble tea, as the tapioca pearls stick to the paper. Compostable straws cost five times more than the average cost of the plastic straws currently in use, excluding shipping. While retailers do want to go green, it is prohibitively expensive to do so. As Andrew Chau, co-owner of bubble tea chain Boba Guys, states, “no single boba shop or manufacturer is going to take on the risk of converting over to compostable [straws] when the price premium is so high.”

Bubble tea straws need to fulfill oddly specific requirements – they need to be wide enough for the tapioca pearls, and it needs to be sharp-angled. (Picture from NPR)

To manage the cost, retailers often resort to buying these alternative straws in bulk, but storage space for straws is often limited. But this leads to yet another issue – alternative straw suppliers are currently unable to keep up with the demand. NPR noted in July 2018 that the few companies manufacturing super-sized paper straws big enough for bubble tea are all reporting large bulk orders and delivery delays lasting up to four months. Imperial Dade, a U.S. based paper straw supplier, stated in June 2018 that there was a two-month wait list for its customers, given a 100 percent increase in demand for its paper straws in the second quarter of the year.

Cost-effective, accessible, and environmentally friendly alternatives to the straw are harder to find than we think. With few alternatives to plastic, we should look into increasing the transition period between when straw bans are first announced and when they go into effect. Increasing the short transition time – which currently usually lasts one to two years – also allows time for policymakers to engage the general public. This would ensure that those who would be most adversely affected are heard and that kinks (such as problems in sourcing for alternatives) can be ironed out. For example, the United Kingdom recently closed their six-week long public consultation on the distribution and/or sale of plastic straws, plastic stemmed cotton buds and plastic drink stirrers, with a key question: was their proposed date for the ban (October 2019) realistic?

For those who rely on straws daily, these plastic straw bans have come on way too quickly without adequate support. It is thus the responsibility of all who are advocating for single-use plastic bans to simultaneously advocate for the development of cost-friendly and sustainable alternatives, well before bans on disposable plastics like straws are put in place. Compostable or biodegradable straws made out of organic material seem promising, but many of these options are still in development. One example is Lolistraw – while used as an example of a plastic straw alternative by Taiwanese Environmental Protection Agency Minister Lee Ying-yuan, these edible straws are still being tested and are not yet mass produced. Without sufficient capital (from the free market or otherwise) being channeled into making such practical alternatives a reality, plastic straws will remain superior.

Plastic straw bans make strong, often inflexible, environmental commitments. Our duty is to afford different groups the ability to make that commitment within a reasonable timeframe and with the appropriate material support. To do that, we must stop expecting bans on plastic straws to be an overnight success, and direct our attention to the hard work at hand – developing suitable replacements to plastic straws.

I live in Camden, Maine at the top of a hill 300 feet above sea level. Each time a hurricane like Harvey, Maria, and Florence batter the US coastline with catastrophic flooding, I breathe a guilty sigh of relief. I convinced myself that here in Maine, we are safe from natural disasters. Even if a hurricane struck, I’d find refuge in my home high on a hill.

I’ve come to realize my complacency is foolhardy.

Height of the storm surge in Lincolnville, Maine, last February.

Storms have long nipped at Maine’s coastline. Suddenly the nips have become bites. Just last winter, a strong nor’easter hit Maine at high tide, inundating towns all across Maine’s coastline, from York to Lincolnville and Lubec. We can’t keep counting on escaping the damage we’ve seen elsewhere. The threat of sea level rise, combined with more intense, larger storms threatens our coastline, too.

The severity of climate change depends on how quickly the world shifts to clean energy. But changing our energy sources is only half the battle. Inevitably, communities worldwide will need to become resilient. Coastal communities, exposed to the most devastating effects of climate change, must adapt. Many coastal cities are already spearheading resilience through floodplain assessment and community planning: New York’s plan One NYC and Boston’s Resilient Boston Harbor are both setting examples for municipalities across the world.

In Maine, state action has been slow. A few municipalities, like Boothbay, have begun to undertake initial resilience assessments. But most municipalities haven’t even started significant resilience planning.

Maine’s 3400-mile coastline, longer than those of all other contiguous states except Florida and Louisiana, means we should be concerned about coastal resilience. Sea levels in the Gulf of Maine are rising faster than average, which will lead to two to seven feet of sea level rise by 2100, changing our shoreline as we know it. By the late 21^st century, just one foot of sea level rise will cause common storms to drive the same amount of flooding as the worst 20^th century storm. Climate change is happening now, and it will cause increasingly costly damage.

Heavy rainfall caused coastal flooding in Portland in late November. Photos courtesy Portland Press Herald

Disturbingly, Mainers hear that we’re relatively safe from climate change. A 2016 article in the New York Times vouched Portland as one of nine cities to live in if you’re worried about climate change. Portland’s Old Port, an economic and cultural center, is right at sea level and already experiences regular flooding at high tide. Certain residential areas in Portland are also right at sea level.

The dangerous myth that we’re safe endangers Maine’s 700,000 coastal citizens and their livelihoods, including 76,200 jobs in coastal tourism and 10,000 jobs in commercial lobster fisheries. Maine’s economy, especially the tourism industry and commercial fisheries, relies heavily on coastal resources that climate change threatens.

The recent federal report on climate change raised urgent concerns about the threat of climate change. It also highlighted how Maine fishermen are already noticing change. They’re finding non-native, southern fish species that have the potential to become invasive. Ecological change like this, drive by rapid ocean warming and acidification, will have widespread, disruptive effects on native species. According to the report, Maine’s iconic lobster fishery is at major risk of decline—and with it, the $434 million industry that supports Maine lobstermen, plus an estimated $1 billion more further down the supply chain.

More than half of Maine’s population lives in coastal counties. The coast has seen an 8.8% population increase from 1960 to 2008, higher than any other state. This shift demonstrates the coast is becoming an evermore central asset, strongly linked to Maine’s economic and cultural centers.

In my hometown of Camden, the harborside downtown becomes a tourism hub and economic center from Memorial Day to leaf peeping season. Rows of small businesses line the streets, restaurants overlook the harbor, and several historic wooden schooners float peacefully. By the end of the century this quintessential scene will look much different. In particular, the public landing and the small businesses on Bay View Street will regularly experience flooding. This story will play out all along Maine’s coast, where economic centers sit barely higher than the high tide line.

The very premise of Maine’s economy, our cultural identity, and our livelihoods is at risk. No coastal town in Maine is immune from sea level rise, flooding, and ecological damage. We need to face the fact that we’re not sheltered, and act now to bolster our coast.

Do you know someone with cancer? With heart disease? With asthma? What about someone who’s been a victim of a wild fire, hurricane, or flood? Chances are that you, or someone you love, has experienced one of these environmentally related health problems.

It’s no surprise that human health and the environment go hand in hand. Environmental issues contribute to devastating health concerns such as worsening water and air quality, toxic waste exposure, poor housing, and pre-mature death. We need the environment to be healthy for us to be healthy. Surprisingly, this connection is often lost. Since people tend to care more about their own health than they do the environment, bylinkinghealth and the environmental the natural strength of human self-interest can be used to energize action.

Last summer I volunteered with the Environmental Voter Project, an organization pushing for environmental action. They know that politicians want to win elections. So, when environmental issues are a low priority for citizens they are a low priority for politicians. Environmentalists tells us to reduce pollution, switch to renewable energy, and prevent habitat loss in order to protect nature, but this framing can feel pretty distant and makes inspiring action challenging.

The environmental health movement takes a different approach. It places human health, rather than the health of the nature, at the center of concern. Health impacts are visible, personal, and prevalent.Framing environmental problems as health problems appeal to deeply held values and morals for human well-being and family health among Americans, and thus engages those who might otherwise be dismissive. Although it may seem to be a subtle difference from the environmental movement, it has a big impact on how issues are framed and communicated to the public.

A national online survey asked U.S residents to read news articles about climate change that focused on risk to the environment, public health, or national security and the benefits of mitigation and adaptation solutions. The survey found that “the public health focus was the most likely to elicit emotional reactions consistent with support for climate change mitigation and adaptation.” People respond positively to emphasis on public health consequences, and to the health benefits of action.

The success of this strategy can be seen in the environmental breast cancer movement. In the U.S  vulnerable, low-income communities of color bear the heaviest burden of environmental toxins that harm human health. Breast Cancer Action is an organization fighting for breast cancer research, awareness, and treatment that focuses on addressing root causes such as decreasing involuntary environmental exposures that put people at risk.

On the other hand, an environmental issue that would be more compelling if framed in terms of health is food security. In a developed country with an abundant food supply like the U.S food security can seem distant, but research is finding that quality matters just as much as quantity. Globally, when pollution, particularly CO2, rises nutritional values of food decline and people are put at risk of nutrition deficiencies. Deficiencies can exacerbate health concerns such as obesity and are particularly harmful to child development.

Scientific reports repeatedly tell us that health is jeopardized by the environment. Last year 16 extreme weather disasters in the U.S cost over $313 billion and took thousands of lives. Recently we have witnessed the deadliest wildfire California has ever seen- $400 billion estimated in damage, over 250 acres burned, and over 100 people dead or missing. Across the world in China’s major cities heavy smog fills the skies taking the lives of 1.6 million people a year. Every day air pollution deteriorates the wellbeing of China’s population.Severe weather events and pollution rage on around the globe.

Today, the environmental health movement is expanding nationally and globally as a holistic and collaborative approach to health. The World Health Organization,American Public Health Association, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences are among major organizations whose missions exemplify the necessity of the movement. By placing people’s values for health and well-being at its core, the environmental health movement is transforming the nature of environmental debate in ways that science and data alone can’t.

If protecting the environment for the sake of preserving it isn’t your thing, then do it for the sake of your health. Making environmental issues a top priority on the political agenda can save lives, including yours and those you love.

Photo Source: https://www.kennebunkportme.gov/public-health-department

On November 23, the federal government released a new climate report with a frightening bottom line: the effects of climate change are already clearly visible in the US, and catastrophes caused by natural disasters will only worsen in the future.

Growing up in beautiful southern Maine, you would be hard-pressed not to appreciate the natural environment’s intrinsic value and beauty. In fact, I wrote my college admissions essay on the impact that living in this environment had on my development as a young adult. At the time, I was writing from the mature perspective of “get me out of here!” Now, exactly four years later, I return home at any opportunity that I can.

The day after Thanksgiving, as many Americans were lulled into a turkey-induced slumber or out checking items off of their Christmas lists, a climate report created by 13 federal agencies was released by the White House. The report concludes that if significant steps are not taken to mitigate climate change, the resulting damage will reduce the size of the American economy 10 percent by the end of the century. The report includes precise calculations about the economic costs and tangible impacts of climate change.

Those findings directly contradict President Trump’s deregulation agenda.

Unfortunately, as presidential administrations shift, so do the environmental values of the federal government at large. One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to roll back environmental regulations, which he argued would be good for the US economy.

According to the report, northeastern states have already seen some of the biggest changes in the nation. Even worse for Mainers, New England climate conditions are changing more rapidly than the entire northeast region that extends down to Maryland and Delaware. Annual average temperatures in New England have risen 1.2 degrees more than the rest of the United States since the beginning of the last century.

Temperature changes, shifts in levels of precipitation, and extremely fast warming in the Gulf of Maine all add up to major impacts to the health, economy, and infrastructure of New England. Already, fishermen in Maine have begun to see species of fish that used to only be found off of southern states. Oceanic species that are the foundation of Maine’s economy are in increased danger as the ocean’s acidity level continues to rise from the absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

While I believe that our environment has its own value, it also provides humans with very important services like purifying the air we breathe. Even for those conservatives who prioritize industry over the health of the environment, the impacts of climate change go far beyond ruined landscapes. The federal report estimates precise costs to the US economy due to impacts of climate change. $141 billion from heat-related deaths, $118 billion from sea level rise, and $32 billion from infrastructure damage over this century. How can anyone ignore these numbers?

This late in the game, action to slow climate change needs to come from the top down. The US government, the leaders of the most powerful democracy in the world, need to take dramatic action first to catch up with actions taken by other nations, and then to go even further than what has already been done. We already have the necessary guidelines of our nation’s previously implemented environmental regulations that we can follow to create impactful climate change policy. The next step comes when the government actually works to create and put these new laws into action, instead of increasingly rolling back our existing environmental protections.

The newly released federal climate report provides economic incentive (and political reason) for the Trump administration to guide its federal agencies to stop weakening our established environmental policy. New policies that would act to slow climate change can be created following the guidelines of our established environmental laws. Taking action now would not only benefit my beloved environment in Maine, but the national economy too.

The US government is gridlocked. The media frequently reports on partisan fights between politicians over just about everything. At the same time, the Trump administration has alienated America’s staunchest allies. It has even questioned the merit of aid-giving institutions like the United Nations.

In the face of these challenges, it is striking that congressional Republicans and Democrats and even Trump himself supported the Better Utilization of Investment Leading to Development (BUILD) Act, which was signed into law on October 5^th. The 93 votes in favor of the bill in the Senate show just how much everyone agreed that US support to private sector development investment is important and that it needed an overhaul.

Since 1969, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or OPIC, had been the government agency that helped US companies invest in development projects overseas. Poorer countries don’t have the funds to fill all of their citizens’ needs, so private investors can step in to fill the gaps. But setting up a business or implementing a project in areas with low- or medium-development can be risky due to political, social, and economic instability. That’s where OPIC stepped in. They provided loans and risk insurance so that investors could put money in places that needed it most.

This support has had real benefits for people around the globe. In the Dominican Republic, for example, OPIC provided loans in order to fund renewable energy in the form of a wind farm in 2011. Not only will the facility cut CO₂ emissions, but it will also provide much-needed electricity to the region. Because of OPIC’s social and environmental standards, the company building the plant also started educational initiatives around clean energy and ecosystem protection.

Despite many such successes, in recent years OPIC has struggled to compete against other sources of funding, particularly loans from China, because of restrictions on its lending abilities. In his testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in support of the BUILD Act, Daniel F. Runde from the Center for Strategic and International Studies cut to the chase, “Frankly, China is eating our lunch around the world, especially in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”

That’s where the BUILD Act comes in. It gives US policymakers the opportunity to shape overseas investments for generations to come by ensuring that private American companies remain competitive in the developing world. For millions of people around the world, this act could change the way that they produce energy, build infrastructure, and set up health care systems.

The BUILD Act replaces the outdated and constrained OPIC with the new US International Development Finance Corporation (USIDFC). Modern rules will allow the USIDFC to provide technical assistance like reports and studies and to purchase stock in companies. It will also double OPIC’s budget and streamline operations between OPIC and the US government’s other development agency, USAID. Overall, proponents say that the USIDFC will allow for more effective implementation of foreign investment for development solutions around the world with few costs to taxpayers.

Because of OPIC’s old fashioned rules and structure, China has been dominating foreign investment for development projects because they can give larger amounts of money, faster, to more companies that are operating in more countries. In September, China announced that it would be investing $60 billion in financial support to Africa alone. But these enormous investments have attracted attention for putting countries into unmanageable amounts of debt and for their poor environmental and labor standards. Sri Lanka’s debt to China grew so much that the government was forced to hand over a whole port to balance its books.

The BUILD Act is a step in the right direction toward furthering US national interests around the world and making US companies more competitive in the international sphere. But we can’t just congratulate ourselves for this one reach across the aisle and move on. As USIDFC starts its work, policymakers must insure that it does so with high social and environmental standards, and dedicated administrators need to be supported so that the agency can be run with integrity and high standards no matter what’s happening on Capitol Hill or in the White House.

Companies partnering with OPIC had obligations to carry out due diligence procedures in regards to environmental and social sustainability. Oxfam, an international organization working to end poverty, applauded the new law for incorporating stronger environmental and social standards in USIDFC’s operating rules, including the creation of an accountability mechanism to hear complaints from affected communities and language on workers’ rights.

Just including these measures have been shown time and time again to not be enough to prevent social and environmental harm.

The US must make sure that it scrutinizes its own practices as much as it does China’s. “We cannot change China’s policy,” Runde says, “but we can have a better offer than China.” To make the best offer on the market, US development funding must also include the assurance that our investments will not hurt those we seek to help. USIDFC allows us to make these better deals by increasing the amount of funding it has to offer and eliminating stringent rules that restricted the ways in which OPIC could provide assistance—and providing support for sustainable practices.

It’s good that USIDFC will have high environmental and social standards, as they will help ensure that communities’ rights are respected by development projects. They are not enough, however, to guarantee that investments cause minimal harm to communities and the environment. The policies must be implemented correctly, consistently, and fairly in order for the US to prove that it actually cares about helping those in underserved areas.

The BUILD Act gives policymakers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revise development finance in a way that helps people around the world get the resources they need with high environmental and social sustainability. Policymakers and citizens alike must remain vigilant to make sure that these aspirations do not become marred in bureaucratic processes within the USIDFC. America’s reputation and credibility are at stake.

In 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline leaked.

Completed in April 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline saw at least 5 documented leaks in its first 6 months of operation. One leak, in November 2017, spilled 210,000 gallons of oil on land directly adjacent to Sioux tribal land. President Trump pushed for the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline despite much opposition. For the Sioux, the fight was about protecting their basic needs. Chief Arvol Looking Horse of the Dakota people wrote “Water is not a resource, it is a right” (x).

However, there was another issue present. Whose resources are being sold?

President Trump ordered the construction of a pipeline, jeopardizing treaty-protected tribal reservation land and Native health and safety. The Sioux were forced off this land by white settlers, and now, with thousands of gallons of oil spilling on the Plains, they reap few benefits from the oil industry right outside their doors.

Before they lived in the Great Plains region, the Dakota Sioux people can be traced geographically to Northern Minnesota. Living in Minnesota, survival was key in an unforgiving environment; their lives hinged on how they used their resources. Fighting with the neighboring Ojibwe tribe, the Sioux moved further South and West, into modern-day North and South Dakota. As settlers from the East began moving westward in the 1800s, the Sioux people were pushed around, confined to reservation land against their will, and executed for disobeying. Settlers also separated tribes from agricultural land and wiped out the bison, eliminating culturally valuable food sources. Hundreds of Sioux died trying to preserve their way of life.

Tribal nations were forced into a Western land ownership system, which disagreed with their beliefs. The worst part is, even on specified reservation land, tribes are deprived of crucial resources.

Natural resource development on tribal land is complicated to say the least. The Secretary of the Interior reviews and authorizes all energy leases and agreements with regards to tribal nations. Native companies must go through almost 50 steps to get a permit for energy development on tribal lands. This diagram shows the number of federal agencies that are potentially associated with tribal land development:

Source: https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/old/pdfs/IndianPolicySeries%20HIGH.pdf

Tribal lands are estimated to contain $1.5 trillion in developable resources, yet the only path to development requires a patronizing and unnecessarily long process. Natives are kept in poverty without the ability to develop their trillions of dollars of capital.

Moreover, because the U.S. federal government owns all native reservation land in a trust system, it can make executive decisions. The federal trust system implies that Native Americans are unable to manage their land independently, and thus the government has executive say. Dakota Sioux may not be able to easily develop their oil reserves, yet President Trump can single-handedly authorize the Dakota Access Pipeline. Today, the Sioux suffer the consequences and reap no benefits from the resources on their land. That is why Sioux pipeline protesters marching in Washington D.C. in 2017 were simply begging, “He [President Trump] needs to listen to us” (x).

This country finds new and ugly ways every day to tear down tribal nations—denying their right to vote after forcing them into citizenship during the allotment era, exploiting their trust land for resources they are unable to develop for themselves, trying to deny them access to healthcare, and so much more.

Tribal nations need systemic change to gain the control and ease of development that any other American has. No person should have to go through several federal agencies, 50 complicated steps, and years of waiting just to obtain the ability to develop their land. Natural resource and energy development on tribal land would create jobs, bolster tribal economy, and allow for much needed modernization of reservations. Native people need livable wages to keep up with the rest of the country and the modern world.

Featured Image source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/north-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-protests-explainer

Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Reuters

I’m excited that the political ads have stopped.

Living on the far southern edge of the Eighth Congressional District, but not far enough north to escape Twin Cities ads, I spent the last six months watching candidates from over Minnesota – all eight congressional districts! – make their pitches to voters. And if you listened to them, you’d think there was a fundamental divide in this state between outstate rural areas, like my hometown, and urban Minnesota, particularly the Twin Cities.

The successes of Minnesota’s cities and Minnesota’s vast rural counties have been pitted against each other – both in this election, and for years.  Greater Minnesota is made out to be bogging the state down, sucking resources and getting handouts. On the flip side, to hear many tell it, the Twin Cities take, take, take and never look beyond the seven-county metro.

But the election is over and it’s time to move on. Discourse on Minnesota’s rural-urban divide has dominated our media for long enough. It’s time to face it: rural Minnesota and urban Minnesota are inextricably linked. And regardless of what the campaigns said, we agree on a lot.

Minnesota Public Radio’s Ground Level survey of 1,600 Minnesotans across the state asked us about our values. And it should be no surprise (or maybe it’s a big surprise): we share a lot of them. Both rural and urban Minnesotans value healthcare and jobs. We want educational opportunities for our children, regardless of where they live. Our state has 12,000 beautiful lakes, acres of forest and prairie, and public lands that are valued by people statewide – in 2008 we even raised our own taxes to protect our water – and that was in the middle of a recession! Safeguarding our natural resources and natural beauty is a shared priority. And boy, do our roads need fixing.

So we share the same values and want similar things for our state. But you wouldn’t know it from the way we talk about our rural-urban divide. We’re told we come from two distant worlds with wildly different values, experiences, and priorities – things that, to hear many tell it, can never work together.

But to fall for this story is to miss the good things happening outstate. The State Demographic Report found that since 1974, rural poverty has been cut from over 20% to 12%. Green energy growth is exploding statewide, and doesn’t even include jobs from biofuels like ethanol. This is part of a larger trend of rural revitalization, where small towns and communities are embracing new identities to adapt to a changing world. And in news that should make everyone who values our resources happy, much of this revitalization centers on eco-tourism, clean energy, and bio-industry.

The changes happening in greater Minnesota are good for the whole state. Smart rural development benefits city dwellers too. The Minnesota Rural Partners Study revealed what many people outstate have been saying for ages: the economies of rural and urban Minnesota are fundamentally linked. In the state’s economy, outstate frequently punches above its weight. Greater Minnesota is home to more than 40% of jobs across nearly twenty industries.

But the story goes deeper than just jobs. Improvements in rural economies also bring substantial benefits to the cities. For example, 38% of growth in outstate manufacturing is actually pumped into the urban economy. And for every 25 jobs created because of this growth, four are based in the metro. The Twin Cities aren’t an island. The metro should care both when outstate’s doing well and when it’s struggling.

Luckily, things are looking up outstate. It’s clear that these improvements in the rural economy will create a cascade of economic growth for the urban economy too. As a state, we should invest in this progress. And I don’t just mean with tourism dollars: while all can appreciate greater Minnesota’s lakes, parks, and natural beauty, urban folks need to keep caring even after their cabins are boarded up for the winter.

We can begin bridging the rural-urban divide and protecting what we care about by supporting smart policies that both protect our resources and support rural economies. As greater Minnesota embraces revitalization schemes rooted in respect for our resources, the rest of the state must get behind these efforts. Support local food hubs and plans that invest in rural community infrastructure like the Rural Housing Loans Program. Partner with farmers to improve our water quality and support state tax credits for home solar. There aren’t winners and losers here. It’s not a fight.

Chances are we’ve all heard our late senator Paul Wellstone’s saying “we all do better when we all do better” repeated again and again these past few months. It’s practically becoming a Minnesotan cliché.  But coming out of this divisive election season, let’s take Wellstone’s words to heart and focus on what unites us, not what divides us. A great place to start is our natural beauty and resources. We can pursue excellence economically and environmentally for country and city folk alike and protect our lakes and forests while we’re at it.

We’re looking at four years of a new statewide government. Let’s make it count, put our divisive rhetoric behind us, and unite behind our shared values for one prosperous, beautiful, caring Minnesota.

I grew up in a rural area of southern Maine with some of the highest food insecurity rates in the state – nearly 70% of the students at my elementary school qualified for free and reduced lunches. When I was in middle school, a well-intentioned professor from UMass Boston was awarded a USDA Community Food Project grant to build a beautiful, $65,000 greenhouse right outside our school. We had gardening classes. Produce from the greenhouse even made its way into our cafeteria’s brand-new “Garden Bar.”

Pictured above: Three of my 7^th grade classmates prepare to trellis pea plants during gardening class in our newly constructed greenhouse. April, 2009.

That professor from Boston really made a difference in our school district. He established a total of 5 school gardens and founded Rippling Waters Organic Farm. He hired local high school students, including my sister, to work on the farm each summer and to learn about food justice. He brought younger students together in the greenhouse, building connections and friendships while trellising peas. After a day of learning on the farm or in the greenhouse, students brought home not just vegetables, but stories, friendships, and enthusiasm that we eagerly shared with our parents. But the project wasn’t sustainable; the professor couldn’t keep it going all on his own.

After going unfunded during the next round of USDA grants and sinking tens of thousands of dollars annually into a farm that the community never fully embraced, the professor sold Rippling Waters. He tried to pass the school garden programs on to a successor, but nobody stepped up. Today, the $65,000 greenhouse and our cafeteria “Garden Bar” stand empty and abandoned, and our school district is left hungry for more than just food.

Stories like this one are pretty common in rural America. Food justice projects in cities far outnumber those in rural areas, despite the fact that a full three quarters of America’s hungriest counties are rural. On the rare occasion that a passionate urban food justice activist ventures out into a rural community, they usually bring their urban strategies with them: starting up an entirely new farm, garden, or greenhouse, employing local youth to increase civic engagement, and distributing the produce to local schools and elders.

Yet strategies that have succeeded in an urban context wither and die in rural communities like mine. Rural residents are dispersed miles away from each other, internet access and cell service can be spotty, and projects rarely get enough community buy-in. When transplanted urban activists eventually burn out – they usually do ­– locals are hesitant to take over their new farms and gardens. While hungry rural communities do need to fight for food justice, they don’t need new fields to tend.

Hunger in rural America won’t be solved with a farm.

That’s why we struggled to find the time, funds, and motivation to take over initiatives like Rippling Waters Organic Farm. It is also why we need to step up to redefine food justice for our rural context.

In that sense, homegrown rural food justice initiatives will stand apart from urban movements. They’ll be about feeding our community not by starting a new farm, but by forming new connections, changing the way we distribute food and our attitudes towards food aid, and empowering individuals to revitalize our local economies.

But we still can (and should) take one or two lessons from successful urban food activism. In the city, farming projects don’t necessarily feed that many people; their most profound impact is providing a designated space where community comes together, adding a bit of green vibrancy back into the grey concrete jungle, and drawing attention to the community’s relationship with food and hunger. Rural communities could use a lot more of that kind of civic engagement and community awareness in their own food justice projects.

So let’s build a community center instead of another farm. Let’s invest in job training and adult education. Let’s not just send our kids out to do farm chores, but teach them about their role in a powerful movement to feed themselves and their neighbors. Let’s actually talk to each other about our common challenges, and overcome the stigma of accepting a little help. Let’s restock that “Garden Bar” with produce from the farms we already have, and let’s celebrate the fact that our community members can provide for each other.

Rural America is hungry for more than just food, so let’s reimagine a rural food justice movement that nourishes our communities as well as our bodies.