A new white from autonomous technology firm Aurora Innovation examines how the cutting edge innovation could reshape the trucking industry and positively affect energy efficiency. 

By using fuel sources more efficiently, autonomous technology could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. The paper looks at the factors influencing energy usage and delves into the specific opportunities and obstacles for autonomous trucking, and it introduces an integrated model for estimating the potential energy savings of a standard over-the-road tractor-trailer in the United States.

The potential benefits

• Autonomous trucks, exempt from hours-of-service regulations, diminish the need to drive at high speeds for quicker arrivals. Consequently, driving at lower speeds reduces fuel consumption per mile. Adopting Aurora’s strategy of maintaining a speed of 65 mph rather than 70-75 mph could potentially decrease highway fuel usage by 9%-17%.

• Trucks frequently use fuel while idling during driver breaks for rest, meals, or downtime between hauls, accounting for 4%-9% of fuel consumption. Although autonomous trucks cannot eradicate idling entirely, they could optimize driving time more effectively.

• A large amount of energy is expended due to ineffective acceleration and braking. Autonomous trucks have the capacity for eco-driving, which involves strategically optimizing acceleration, braking, and coasting to enhance energy efficiency and lower fuel consumption. Referencing a study highlighted in the white paper, it was discovered that implementing more strategic coasting could result in fuel savings of up to 9.5%.

• Autonomous trucks have the capability to operate almost continuously throughout the day, allowing them to transition more freight transportation to off-peak hours. This shift not only lowers the fuel consumption of autonomous trucks by reducing time spent in traffic but also aids in alleviating congestion and decreasing fuel usage for other vehicles.

Furthermore, the white paper also suggests that the adoption of autonomous trucks could pave the way for accelerated adoption of next-generation powertrains. 

“As autonomous trucks make hauling freight safer, we have a responsibility to make logistics more sustainable as well. Self-driving technology can fight climate change by increasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions in the supply chain,” paper author Garrett Bray said.

The view from Arizona

Arizona has become a hub for the testing of autonomous passenger and heavy-duty vehicles, which the head of the Arizona Manufacturers Council said enhances the state’s competitive standing for advanced manufacturing.

“Arizona is a leader in the research, development, and manufacture of next generation automotives, whether they’re autonomous, electric, or alternative fuel,” AMC Executive Director Grace Appelbe said. “The innovations in the heavy-duty truck space are especially exciting because they not only attract new job-creating talent to Arizona, but they also are likely to have an immediate positive effect on our supply chain and logistics sector, which further enhances the state’s economic competitiveness.”

The post Autonomous trucking likely to be more energy efficient, new research says appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

BASIS-Peoria was rated the nation’s #1 public high school, and a dozen Arizona schools scored among the country’s 100 best, according to.

Among all states, Arizona and Florida tied for the most public high schools ranked among the Top 100 nationally.

“This independent analysis by U.S. News & World Report confirms what we already knew: Arizona has some of the best public schools in the country,” Jake Logan, President & CEO of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, said in a statement. “We congratulate BASIS and each of Arizona’s outstanding public charter and district schools for getting the recognition they deserve. This is truly a testament to Arizona’s excellent teachers and school leaders.”

The highly-anticipated U.S. News rankings are released annually and include a review of approximately 25,000 public high schools across all 50 states. graduation rate, curriculum, test performance, college readiness, academic achievement by low-income students and students of color, and other factors.

The BASIS charter network had 10 schools that rated among the nation’s 100 best. University High School, in Tucson, was Arizona’s highest-ranked district school and was rated #81 nationally.Public charter schools accounted for, according to the rankings.

The post BASIS, Arizona dominate U.S. News & World Report high school rankings appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

The Phoenix Airport system has a positive economic impact of more than $44 billion per year according to from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. 

The system, which in addition to Phoenix Sky Harbor includes airports in Deer Valley and Goodyear, supports more 246,000 direct and indirect jobs with a payroll of nearly $15 billion annually. 

The study captured data from 2022, when domestic and international travel was still very much in pandemic recovery, and yet the study shows upticks in economic output, worker wages, and visitor spending compared to a previous study in 2016. 

By the numbers 

• Visitor spending: increased 12% from 2016 to 2022, or $5.8 billion to $6.5 billion.
• Spending by domestic visitors: An estimated $831 per visitor per trip.
• Spending by international visitors: $1,002 per visitor per trip.
• Jobs at Sky Harbor: More than 47,000
• Domestic destinations from Sky Harbor: More than 120.
• International destinations from Sky Harbor: 25.

From the Mayor’s Office 

“The Phoenix Airport System is a critical asset to our community and state, and this new study underscores how vital it is to our economy,” Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego said. “Phoenix is thriving in no small part thanks to our airports, and our continued investment in them creates jobs, supports both local and global businesses, connects Phoenicians to worldwide opportunities, and leaves visitors with a desire to come back to the Valley.” 

From the business community 

• “Arizona has all the bragging rights when it comes to its flagship international airport,” Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry president and CEO Danny Seiden said. “It’s modern, convenient, affordable, and offers destinations across the country and around the globe. Sky Harbor and the Phoenix Airport system is an indispensable part of the Arizona economy.” 

• “As frequent travelers know, we’re so fortunate to call Phoenix Sky Harbor International our home airport. But we’re not the only ones who think so,” Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association President and CEO Kim Sabow said. “In The Wall Street Journal’s of best airports, Sky Harbor landed in the no. 1 slot, and for good reason. With comparatively few delays, great service and amenities, and plenty of destinations, what’s not to like?” 

Bright horizons ahead 

• During her State of the City address last week, Gallego said Phoenix is in the planning stages for a brand-new terminal.
  
• In May, a new nonstop flight between Paris and Phoenix will join London and Frankfurt among the nonstop routes to Europe.

The post New study: Sky Harbor and airport system crank out more than $44 billion in economic output appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday voted to ban noncompete agreements. The ban would prohibit new noncompete agreements for every employee and mandate that companies inform both current and former staff that they won’t be enforcing such agreements. Additionally, businesses will be obligated to revoke existing noncompete agreements for the majority of their employees. Senior level executives’ agreements, however, may remain intact. 

The FTC view

Commission members backing the ban argue that noncompete agreements are unfair for workers. 

“It is so profoundly unfree and unfair for people to be stuck in jobs they want to leave, not because they lacked better alternatives, but because noncompetes preclude another firm from fairly competing for their labor,” FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter (D) said. 

The chairwoman of the FTC argued that the ban will foster new business formation.

“Noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market.”

Businesses strongly disagree

Business groups blasted the rule, arguing that noncompetes are important to the protection of intellectual property and that the FTC lacks the authority even to issue such a ban. 

Bills have been introduced in Congress to reform noncompete agreements, but no authority has been explicitly granted to the FTC. 

Suzanne Clark, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that the ban is “a blatant power grab that will undermine American businesses’ ability to remain competitive.”

Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, two of the agency’s Republican commissioners, echoed these sentiments. 

“We are not a legislature,” Ferguson . “I do not believe we have the power to nullify tens of millions of existing contracts.”

In a press release from the National Association of Manufacturers, the organization that the ban is “Unprecedented and threatens manufacturers’ ability to attract and retain talent. In addition, today’s action puts at risk the security of intellectual property and trade secrets — anathema to an industry that accounts for 53% of all private-sector R&D.” 

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry called it “federal overreach at its finest.”

Read more

Arizona Chamber President and CEO Danny Seiden in a column last year when the ban was originally floated by the FTC, said, “The proposed rule stretches the agency’s mission to the point of absurdity and seeks to unilaterally reinterpret the section of the Federal Trade Commission Act on ‘unfair methods of competition,’ never mind what the pesky legislative branch or the 50 states might have to say on the subject.”

The post Business groups blast FTC decision to ban noncompete agreements appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

A bipartisan coalition of Western state governors is seeking greater flexibility from the Biden administration in achieving the strict ozone standards in the Clean Air Act. 

In a letter from Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R), and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon (R), the governors cite “substantial regionally specific challenges” in meeting the law’s requirements, and say that they are “alarmed about the possible sanctioning of states that struggle to attain the standard.” 

The challenges 

The governors in their letter cite specific challenges borne by Western states in achieving the ozone standards:

• Elevated natural background ozone levels
• Biogenic contributors
•  Internationally transported pollution
•  Fast-growing populations
•  Wildfires

Mobile sources, which are under federal regulatory jurisdiction, thus limiting states’ regulatory authority. 

“Despite ongoing work by Western states to improve air quality, including through accelerating the adoption of low and non-emitting vehicle technology, improvements in the use of small off-road engines, and the implementation of innovative programs to control emissions from stationary sources, these regional challenges leave Western states with a narrow set of tools and a difficult path to meeting the requirements of the CAA and attaining the NAAQS.” 

NAAQS refers to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

Potential sanctions undermine stated goals 

Failure to meet the standards could result in a loss of federal highway dollars. 

Losing out on highway dollars would undermine the goals of the Clean Air Act by halting projects that could reduce emissions and would undermine the goals of the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law to modernize highway infrastructure to reduce congestion, which contributes to emissions. 

Potential solutions 

Among several potential solutions offered in their letter, the governors proposed: 

• Greater cooperation between the EPA and Western states to identify how the Exceptional Events framework can reflect increased wildfire activity, “and provide more consideration for the emissions benefits of wildfire mitigation strategies in reducing air pollution in the West and nationally”; and
• Cooperation between the federal government and states to achieve a better process for the approval of projects with air quality benefits. 

Business community: Jobs at stake 

The National Association of Manufacturers last year said proposed EPA revisions to the NAAQs

would put at risk more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs nationally and would put more than a half-million jobs in a nonattainment zone by 2027. 

Last year, Danny Seiden, the president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, said before a joint legislative committee on air quality that the challenge of pollution originating in other states and countries was particularly vexing. 

“We are being punished for what other states and other countries are doing,” he said. 

More Seiden: Stringent air quality rule will hurt our economic recovery and growth

The post Governors, including Hobbs, seek greater flexibility from feds on air quality standards appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

As threats of missile attacks persist, Israel is employing cutting-edge technology and sophisticated equipment for its defense. Among these are technologies developed by defense firms operating in Arizona, highlighting the state’s pivotal defense industry. 

Arrow 

The Arrow system stands out as a premier air defense mechanism against long-range ballistic threats. This high-altitude system is engineered to intercept ballistic missiles outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The Arrow operates through a kinetic kill vehicle, which destroys incoming missiles upon direct contact, thus neutralizing any threat before it can reach its intended target. 

The Arrow system is a joint effort between Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing. The latter, with operations in Arizona, specifically contributes to the production of the Arrow’s interceptors. Boeing’s expertise in aerospace technologies enhances the efficacy of the Arrow system, providing a significant defense against missile attacks. 

Apache 

Aside from its involvement in the Arrow system, Boeing has a notable presence in supplying equipment to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Boeing’s Arizona operations are integral in supplying platforms like the AH-64 Apache helicopter to Israel. 

With Boeing’s manufacturing and innovation hubs located in Arizona, the state serves as a vital nexus in the production of these defense systems. 

David’s Sling 

David’s Sling was developed jointly by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Israeli firm, and Raytheon Technologies, an American company. This form of defense is designed to intercept enemy missiles and rockets, particularly those targeting mid- to long-range. 

Unlike the Arrow, David’s Sling deals with threats such as tactical ballistic missiles, medium- to long-range rockets, and cruise missiles. 

Raytheon has a big presence in Arizona, particularly in Tucson where it’s the city’s largest private employer and where advanced missile systems are designed and manufactured. This presence boosts local economies and plays a critical role in the development of defense technologies that are important on a global scale. 

Some other advanced technologies developed in Arizona used by Israel include night vision equipment from Litton Systems and micro-processing products from White Microelectronics. 

These partnerships are facilitated by Arizona’s strategic initiatives, such as the trade office opened in Israel in 2019 and are bolstered by funding from collaborations like the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD). These partnerships enhance military and defense capabilities, while also stimulating economic growth by creating jobs and fostering technological advancements in both regions.

The post How defense firms with a major presence in Arizona are helping Israel  appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝ sat down recently with Benji Backer, the founder of the American Conservation Coalition and the author of The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solutions for a Sustainable Future, which was released Apr. 16. Part 1 of the interview is here. Part 2 follows.

ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝: You’re the author of a new book, The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solutions for a Sustainable Future. What’s your book about? 

Benji Backer: I’ve spent the last seven years traveling to hundreds of communities, rural and urban, to find solutions to environmental challenges and see the realities and complexities firsthand. This book is a culmination of all those experiences and partnerships with amazing organizations and people to basically build out this alternative path on environmental action. 

The book details why this issue became so divided, and how that’s unnecessary, but most importantly it talks about what sort of solutions people could agree on and what short term wins we can ally on to protect our environment. 

Those things include things that aren’t that sexy or exciting compared to what has been proposed in headlines like “drill, baby drill,” or banning fossil fuels. But there are a ton of common-sense solutions that are outlined in the book that we could pursue right now, while also leaning on entrepreneurship, innovation, the growth of technology, and ingenuity in this country and across the world to solve the remainder of the challenge. 

It basically charts that alternative approach. And it calls on our leaders to do that, too. 

CBN: Are there some small wins to be had? 

Bracker: We cannot solve environmental challenges without incrementalism. This is a walk, then jog, then run, approach. Overhauling people’s lives will never be a sustainable way forward because people will never adopt that. People will always push back.  

We need to create solutions that work for people and the planet. We need to be lowering costs and increasing efficiency. We need to make people’s lives better with the solutions, otherwise it will never be adopted here or anywhere else around the world.  

So, that means incrementalism and getting some wins under our belt, getting the momentum in the right direction. And thankfully, we already have. The United States is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions. We have not done enough, but we are moving in the right direction,

CBN: Chapter 2 is titled, “Streamlining the Complicated Role of Government in the New Green Economy.” Tell us about your argument there. 

Backer: Contrary to popular belief, the government has actually stood in the way of clean energy development and pro-environmental projects. It takes 10 years for an offshore wind developer or a geothermal company to get approved. You have forest owners who cannot manage their forests because of government regulation that results in massive wildfires. 

I’m not saying that we should just take a hands-off, laissez faire approach to solve environmental challenges. But the government can also overstep its bounds and stand in the way of progress. And that’s what’s happening right now in a lot of ways. 

Even though it might not sound pro-environment to loosen regulations and allow people to manage forests and get energy projects deployed faster when they don’t have to go through as lengthy of an approval process, it actually will end up helping us. And you can see that as proof from other countries that are doing this way better than we are. You look at Europe and their ability to manage forests and deploy nuclear and other clean energy sources fast. 

Benji Backer, Founder and Executive Chairman, American Conservation Coalition

CBN: To what extent should a regulation’s effect on business be considered before being adopted? 

Backer: First, we have to turn this issue on its head; we should be relying on the private sector as the first place that we go for solutions, then we should be looking at the local government, then the state government, and then the federal government.  

Let’s say the government is an important part of an environmental solution in the energy space. It should be equipping and incentivizing the right behavior, not prohibiting, and regulating and mandating. 

When you put chokeholds on the economy, and you don’t push people in the right direction, you get bad results. 

I see the role of the government as supporting the right moves to create the marketplace for sustainable business, not to prevent against unsustainable business. We should be equipping companies to do the right thing rather than prohibiting them from doing the wrong thing.

CBN: On the topic of energy, coal is being phased out. Can natural gas and nuclear energy be part of a clean energy future? 

Backer: We can’t have a clean energy future without nuclear and natural gas. We need base load, 24/7 power, and we have to have reliable energy that doesn’t just work when the sun shines and the wind blows.  

There are a lot of parts of this country that aren’t sunny, and there are a lot of parts of this country that aren’t windy, and every part of this country that has a nighttime and doesn’t have wind or sun, so we need to be realistic about what energy sources we’re providing.  

We also have an obligation to middle and lower-class people to provide them with energy that is cost effective. Nuclear and natural gas do that in a way that also is pro-environment. 

If you replace coal with natural gas, you reduce emissions significantly worldwide. Again, that’s why the United States has reduced emissions.

People will use the energy sources that are the lowest cost option, and right now natural gas is a clean way to do that, a reliable way to do that. 

CBN: What are the opponents of nuclear and natural gas missing? 

Backer: Unfortunately, they’re missing reality. I think there’s a lot of ignorance and a lot of misinformation out there and oversimplification. 

To be anti-natural gas or nuclear is ignorant at best, and destructive — intentionally destructive at worst. 

I think it boils down for most well-intentioned people to ignorance, but also this kind of idea of NIMBYism. Not-in-my-backyardism. People don’t want even wind turbines or solar panels, but especially natural gas plants, or mining for uranium, or nuclear plants themselves in their backyards.  

But again, that demand is going to be met somewhere. So, if it’s not near you, it’s near someone else. And if it’s not near someone else, then it’s probably overseas where countries like China don’t care about their impact on the environment.  

CBN: There is a vocal counter argument to what you’re saying, which is that renewables are ready today to replace these sources. You seem skeptical of that. 

Backer: I wish renewables were ready today. I’m skeptical that they will ever be at the scale that people want them to be, but they’re not ready. They are not ready for mass adoption and to replace our energy portfolio. And people who are saying that renewables are ready to replace all other energy sources are flat out wrong and they’re either lying or they don’t know the realities.

Again, I wish that wasn’t the case. I don’t want it to come across to people that I am anti-renewables. There’s a reality here that is being missed by so many, and we, I think, forget as a country, how reliant we are on energy to survive. Intermittent, sparsely resourced energy sources are not the way forward. It would turn America backwards and harm our most vulnerable people. 

I hate when people use that as an argument to say that we don’t need renewables, because that’s not true, either. They have an important place at the table. But I also hate it when people say that that’s all we need, because that’s not true, and that’s even more damaging to society than saying that we don’t need them at all. 

CBN: Can we be good stewards of the land and still engage in industries like mining, drilling, and hydraulic fracturing? 

Backer: If humans didn’t exist on the earth with the population we have, then we wouldn’t have to have these tough conversations about tradeoffs.  

But I believe in humanity, and I believe in our ability to make this world a better place, and I believe our population can do a lot of good. And so, if we have the population we do, we will have demand for resources that constantly means we’re taking from the environment.  

We have to mine, no matter if that’s for uranium, for nuclear fuel, or lithium for EV batteries, or cobalt for solar panels, wind turbines, every single energy source product. 

Not all mining and drilling and taking from the environment is the same. We should have high standards. We should prioritize protecting the places that we’re not taking from. And we should be creating technologies to figure out how to take the least from the environment possible. 

CBN: When we think about policy in the environmental policy space, we often are dealing with the executive branch rulemaking regulations. Do you have an opinion on whether you’d like to see these issues be discussed in Congress or in the White House? 

Backer: I think the role of Congress is to find a bipartisan common ground on these issues. But the problem with relying on the federal government is that you allow it to be a political football. If it’s partisan, it’s inherently at risk of being undone. And I think Congress and the White House have an obligation. I don’t think President Biden has done a good job of this at all. And I don’t think President Trump did a good job of this at all, of working with the other side, to come up with solutions. 

CBN: When will we know whether your organization has achieved its goals? 

Backer: The moment that our organization, this book, this entire movement, has achieved its goals is the day that we return to cross partisan collaboration on the environment again.  

I believe nature is nonpartisan, and until our elected leaders understand that too, our movement has not worked. But once they do, we’ve done our job, and it’s time to move forward on the solutions. But until Americans demand that they work together on this, they won’t. 

That’s why I’m calling on all people, regardless of political ideology, to stand together and fight for these principles because we need it. We are in desperate need of a new environmental movement, and that new environmental movement will be successful when we’re seeing it in policy and when the environment is no longer part of our culture wars.

The post Author on environment and conservatism charts new course on environmental policy appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

In an by the Phoenix-based law firm Snell & Wilmer, the State of Arizona has been trying to advance a novel and troubling concept through a recent “test case”: holding corporate leaders personally liable when their company violates the law, even if they did not participate, know about, or approve of the underlying actions. This idea, known as the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” is a judge-made theory of liability similar to piercing the corporate veil. Adopting this doctrine would upend traditional legal protections and create uncertainty for business leaders across the state.  

In State v. Tombstone Gold & Silver, Inc., the State of Arizona sued a mining company and three of its individual officers for violating a consent order. In its complaint, the State sought liability and damages against the officers under the responsible corporate officer doctrine even though the State had no evidence that the officers directed—or knew about—environmental law violations. In fact, the officers were not even parties to the consent order that the State accused them of violating. In other words, the State sought to establish a form of strict liability, where officers of the company were automatically personally liable for a company’s actions. 

Fortunately, the court quickly rejected the State’s argument, recognizing the State was trying to vastly expand liability for corporate officers. It noted that no published Arizona case has ever adopted the responsible corporate officer doctrine and declined to take the State’s invitation to expand officer liability beyond what the environmental law statutes already provide. It dismissed the officers from the case and invited a petition for their attorney fees and costs.  

The court was right to do so. The responsible corporate officer doctrine would not only erode the corporate structure’s safeguards but also deter investment and innovation in Arizona.   

Business leaders already make difficult decisions every day to manage risk, meet client needs, and deliver returns to shareholders. These tasks are difficult enough without having to worry about things outside their control resulting in personal liability. Introducing a blanket liability standard for actions beyond their control would only add unnecessary burdens and hinder economic growth. 

Arizona has worked hard to develop a reputation as a business-friendly state. Threatening corporate officers with personal liability for actions the officers did not direct risks this reputation. Further, it signals that Arizona may not be the predictable, stable, and reasonable policy environment to which businesses have grown accustomed.  

For now, corporate officers remain safe from the State’s attempts to erode the corporate form. Hopefully, Arizona’s courts keep it that way. 

Nate Curtisi is chief counsel for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

The post Court rejects State of Arizona’s novel legal theory that creates uncertainty for businesses appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝ sat down recently with Benji Backer, the founder of the American Conservation Coalition and the author of The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solutions for a Sustainable Future, which will be released Apr. 16.

Here’s part 1 of our conversation. Portions have been edited for clarity.

ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝: What is the American Conservation Coalition?

Benji Backer: The American Conservation Coalition is an organization I started when I was at college at the University of Washington. The last 16 years I have been active in politics. My other passion is being in the outdoors, which led me to move to Arizona. I fell in love with the outdoors here. To me, when I’m in nature, the environment itself doesn’t seem political or partisan. and I became super frustrated that the narrative in environmental politics has been and was at the time basically like this Green New Deal alarmist, “the world’s gonna end”, or we need huge government action to overhaul the economy, or we should be doing nothing – that there’s no problem at all.

So, the American Conservation Coalition and this book aim to fill that gap by creating a grassroots community of young people like me – 40,000 of us now over 200 communities – in chapters that are pushing elected officials, business leaders, and decision makers to prioritize the environment in a way that is good for humanity, good for our economy, good for our individual lives, and allowing us to have individual liberty and prosperity at the same time. It’s basically creating an alternative environmental movement.

CBN: Do you anticipate the Coalition making its voice heard in the presidential election?

Backer: We feel like the presidential election this year and previous years has been an encapsulation of part of the problem, which is that the narrative is still kind of this doom and gloom. “We need drastic action,” versus “these issues don’t matter.” 

We feel like, regardless of who wins, we need to make progress, and we need to do it in a common sense, realistic way. So, we’re not going to be weighing in on endorsing a candidate in the 2024 election.

We will be endorsing some congressional candidates – ones that have prioritized the environment and prioritized this kind of common sense, pro-economy approach. But at the presidential level, we just feel like it’s another election where, unfortunately, even though most Americans don’t believe the denial versus alarmist narrative, that’s unfortunately the narrative that we’re kind of having to buy into by choosing a candidate. So we’re just setting our sights on what we can accomplish after the election at the state and federal levels.

Benji Backer, Founder and Executive Chairman, American Conservation Coalition

CBN: Why do you believe conservatism, properly understood, goes hand in hand with conservation?

Backer: The conservatives used to lead environmental progress. You look back at Teddy Roosevelt, to Richard Nixon, to Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, those four presidents, all Republicans, led the most historic environmental initiatives of all time. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, creation of the EPA, creation of the National Park system as we know it, the largest marine sanctuary and public lands protections of all time. Those are all under those presidents.

Conservatism used to have conservation as a core pillar of its value system. But most importantly, there’s a reason for that. And the reason is, conservatives who tend to  be freedom loving Americans who appreciate the beauty of our country, love to recreate in nature. They’re often the hunters and fishermen and women. They’re the ranchers and the farmers. They’re the hikers and skiers and people who just love spending time outdoors. Of course they want to protect [the environment]. And, you know, conservatives tend to be more often than not located in rural areas, which are nestled in nature itself.

When you think about Arizona, or you think about any of the states in the West, the most conservative parts are parts in nature, and they have a personal stake in protecting the environment. So, what my message is, is that this issue used to be one that conservatives led on and it can be again. It’s an authentically conservative position, but it’s authentically a nonpartisan position as well. To me nature is nonpartisan – to me the environment is something that we all share.

CBN: Can the views and agenda of the American Conservation Coalition and those expressed in your book still have a home in today’s version of conservatism, which tends to be defined by the views and attitudes of the former president and his supporters?

Backer: I think the conservative movement has absolutely lost its way on these issues. This is a new problem, and it’s one that is so avoidable and unnecessary. 

The reason why Trump supporters and conservatives are so skeptical of environmental action is because they perceive that the only solutions are ones that are going to hurt them and take control of their lives. And what I’m trying to tell conservative leaders and voters is that that’s not the case. Just because you don’t like the other side’s ideas doesn’t mean that you can’t propose good ideas of your own. You should be playing offense and proposing good ideas.

I don’t think that it’s too late to turn the tide by any means, but I do think that it’s harmful when the president talks about the environment as basically a consumer good, and that we can just kind of tap into it as much as we want and that there aren’t any repercussions. I think he’s very misguided in that, and I think if he wants to show young people that he actually cares about them and this country, he changes his tune. 

This issue is going to be important past the time that Trump is relevant. This is going to be something that we have to fight for for decades, and my generation’s right and left isn’t going to tolerate environmental inaction.

The post Author of new book The Conservative Environmentalist says conservation, love of environment is at heart of conservatism appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.

A new bipartisan effort led by Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) in the U.S. House of Representatives aims to widen veterans’ access to educational opportunities, particularly in high-demand skilled trade and vocational programs. 

The proposed bill, titled the Veterans Education and Technical Skills (VETS) Opportunity Act, aims to extend educational benefits under the post-9/11 GI Bill to include hybrid versions of skilled trade training programs. 

The bill’s backers say the initiative represents a significant step towards modernizing veterans’ educational benefits to align with evolving learning trends and address workforce shortages in essential trades. 

“This legislation makes an important modernization to our veterans’ GI benefits to include hybrid skilled trade educational programs,” Ciscomani said. “Not only does this improve the way our veterans access their benefits but also helps to tackle the current workforce shortage in skilled trades.”

Veterans often face barriers to employment upon returning to civilian life, including a lack of access to relevant training and certification programs. The VETS Opportunity Act seeks to dismantle these barriers by providing veterans with the necessary resources to acquire in-demand skills and qualifications, which would enhance their employment prospects in today’s competitive job market.

Hiring veterans is likely to boost private firms’ bottom line.

Consulting firm McKinsey & Co. last year that veterans are “a source of labor potential that is untapped relative to the breadth of experience and depth of skills that they acquire and develop during their service,” and that “the economic opportunity of unleashing the value of veterans’ work experience through skills-based hiring could reach almost $15 billion over a ten-year period.”

Support for the bill comes from various organizations including the American Legion and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA).

“The proposed change would expand post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility to veterans enrolled in high-quality, postsecondary programs offered in a hybrid educational format that teach in-demand skilled trades that are aligned with the requirements of state and local employers,” John Bowen, Sr., chairman of the American Legion’s Veterans Employment & Education Commission said. 

The VETS Opportunity Act has been referred to the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

The post Ciscomani bill would expand veterans’ access to education in skilled trades appeared first on ßŮÁ¨´ŤĂ˝.