California has made huge strides in combating climate change, but there is still a long way to go. Back in 2006, state lawmakers passed AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. It set a goal of getting greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels or lower by 2020. The state managed to reach that goal four years early. Robert Epstein, co-founder of Environmental Entrepreneurs, discussed the success of AB 32, and what needs to happen next, during a lecture at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy.
Epstein begins with a look at what worked. Some solutions you might expect, like renewable energy, increased efficiency and long-lasting political support. Other factors may come as a surprise. The economic downturn helped, because people use fewer resources when they have less money. We also got some assistance from mother nature, with heavy rains in 2016 that boosted hydroelectric power generation. But, even though California has made great achievements in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the state must make even deeper cuts to avoid the worst effects of climate change. A new version of AB 32 aims to get emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
Epstein says California has much of the technology and policy in place to reach that 40% goal, but some aspects of the plan are unclear. He says we’re on pace to meet 50% renewable energy 10 years early, and have a solid track record when it comes to appliance and building standards. He thinks it’s likely we’ll figure out how to manage methane and increase energy storage. But, he sees big hurdles when it comes to reducing transportation emissions, cap and trade reductions, and management of both forests and land used for agriculture.
Despite those challenges, Epstein is optimistic California can rise to the occasion and be an example to the world of how to combat climate change. He even has some ideas on how to overcome each major obstacle, and how the oil industry might be able to help.
Watch California Accomplishments in Addressing Climate Change featuring Robert Epstein
You’ve probably seen the videos online recently – someone calls the police on a person of color for seemingly no reason. Maybe it’s a group of families having a barbecue, teens at a public pool, or a college student who fell asleep on campus. Incidents like these are getting more attention thanks in part to social media and the nicknames given to callers like BBQ Becky or Cornerstore Caroline. Andrea Headley studies these situations and other aspects of police accountability in her work at UC Berkeley.
It’s called profiling by proxy. It happens when someone calls police based on their own biases or prejudice. While many make light of these situations online, they can potentially have serious consequences. Headley notes, you never know how someone will react when confronted by officers. That person might have inherent fear of law enforcement due to previous encounters, or the officers might hold some of the same biases as the caller. A situation that starts out as a minor call has the potential to escalate quickly.
So, what’s the solution? Some might suggest the easy fix is for police to assess the situation, realize the call is unfounded, admonish the caller and move on. But, Headley says that response ignores the complicated and often tense relationship between communities of color and police. It also takes responsibility away from the caller. Headley says the best way to stop these calls is for people to ask themselves tough questions about their own biases, and have conversations with family and friends to get the root of why this is happening. She says there is a role for policy when it comes to how 911 dispatchers interpret calls and relay information to officers, but that’s not the first line of defense.
Watch Police Accountability and Profiling by Proxy with Andrea Headley — In the Arena with Jonathan Stein — UC Public Policy Channel
Women played a huge role in the 2018 midterms. Women voters flipped districts across the country, and female candidates won a record number of congressional seats. So, what does it mean for American politics as a whole moving forward? Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Goldman School of Public Policy professor Sarah Anzia sat down with graduate student Charlotte Hill to examine what happened in 2018, and what might happen in 2020.
The conversation begins with an analysis of what led to the unprecedented wins of 2018. Both Anzia and Granholm point out there was a massive increase in women running as Democrats, but the number of Republican female candidates remained about the same as years past. Granholm argues the increase is evidence women are more motivated than ever before to get involved in politics, from the Women’s March to the voting booth. She suggests the lopsided nature of that motivation is in no small part a reaction to President Trump.
The other major change the panel noticed was women changing the way they campaigned. From ads that show candidates breastfeeding, to addressing sexual assault, professor Anzia says, “women were running as women.” While it may seem like a strange observation, Granholm agrees, saying she was advised not to show her children, and was coached on keeping her voice low when she was running. Granholm calls the new acceptance of women being their authentic selves a gift. She points to millennial representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as examples of women who have cast off restraints historically placed on women in office.
As of now, there are four women officially running for president in 2020. Granholm believes a woman will certainly be on the presidential ticket. But, will we finally see a woman in the White House? Will 2020 be another historic year for women? Only time will tell, but Anzia and Granholm have some predictions.
Watch Women in Politics with Jennifer Granholm, Sarah Anzia, and Charlotte Hill
We have all heard the dire warnings. Artificial intelligence is predicted to decimate job sectors already hit hard by outsourcing. Some studies suggest up to half of all work could be automated by 2030. That means factory workers, drivers, even some accountants may find themselves without a job.
Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan, knows the pain of job-loss all too well. She witnessed the closing of factories in towns like Greenville, where three thousand of the town’s eight thousand residents worked at the same plant. But, Granholm remains optimistic about the future of employment in the United States. She believes we can make artificial intelligence work for us, not against us.
Granholm uses the autonomous vehicle as one example. While the technology could put five million drivers out of work, it could also create millions of new jobs. We could see the rise of new industries such as mobile motels, or pop-up shops. Driverless cars could eliminate the need for massive parking lots, creating space for affordable housing. But, new industries require a workforce with new skills.
Granholm has five suggestions for creating that workforce. Three of those suggestions focus on investment in training, including apprenticeships and internships. She suggests diverting funds currently used to subsidize unemployment. She also says we need to come up with a way to create portable benefits for people with alternative jobs, such as Uber drivers and other app-based workers. The final suggestion: pay people for their data. Granholm says the tech sector is making billions off our personal information, and there may be a way to share that wealth.
Watch Shaping a 21st Century Workforce – Is AI Friend or Foe?
Willie Brown has spent his life in public service. He served over 30 years in the California State Assembly – 15 of those years as Speaker – before becoming the first African American mayor of San Francisco. For the past 10 years, he’s been writing a column for the San Francisco Chronicle on politics, movies, art, and anything else on his mind. When he took the podium at the Goldman School of Public Policy recently, he touched on lessons from all those experiences. But, his main focus was the 2018 midterms and the upcoming general election.
Brown began by looking back to 2016, explaining why he predicted Donald Trump would win the presidency. Brown, a lifelong Democrat and friend of Hillary Clinton, says Clinton could have been one of the best presidents in history. But, Brown knew that Trump had the skill and ability to connect with voters in a way Clinton could not. Brown also traces Clinton’s loss across several election cycles, when Democrats lost the House and the Senate during the Obama years.
Trump’s victory however, could be the key to the Democratic Party’s recovery, Brown says. He says Trump has failed to build a coalition beyond his core supporters that voted him into office. That helped Democrats win in states like Michigan and Wisconsin in 2018, where Clinton lost in 2016. Brown also credits Nancy Pelosi with organizing the party to help take back the House. But, in order to keep that momentum going and defeat President Trump in 2020, Brown says Democrats have to identify a strong candidate with the same ability to move voters. He says there are three strong options from California, and one in particular he hopes to see on the ballot.
Watch The Honorable Willie Brown on the 2018 Midterms and Strategy for 2020