BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM On November 5, Washington voters made an important decision for the future of climate action by deciding to uphold the state’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA), one of the nation’s most ambitious climate laws. This vote marked a huge loss for Republican efforts to dismantle the act, which Governor Jay Inslee signed into law in 2021. With 61.7 percent voting against the repeal, Washingtonians demonstrated their support for a state-led approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing climate resilience. The Climate Commitment Act established a cap-and-invest program to control carbon emissions from corporations while also providing a revenue stream for environmental conservation. In this system, corporations must acquire emission permits in a controlled auction, establishing a financial and legal incentive to lessen their environmental effect. The program’s early success has attracted attention, both for its financial successes and for its potential as a model for other states to follow. How the Washington cap-and-invest program works Washington’s cap-and-invest scheme uses a sealed-bid auction in which firms bid for carbon permits. Each allowance grants authority to emit one metric ton of greenhouse gas. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, corporations can bid on a block of allowances at their requested price. Bids are ranked from highest to lowest, and once all allowances have been given, the price of the lowest winning bid is paid by all successful bidders. Businesses that don’t win the auction must buy allowances from others, resulting in a competitive market for emissions permits. Over time, the quantity of available allowances will decrease, lowering emissions in line with Washington’s climate goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050. The state has set lofty goals to reduce emissions by 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 70 percent by 2040, and 95 percent by 2050. Financial success and environmental investments Since the program’s inception, the Climate Commitment Act has raised significant cash for Washington’s environmental aims. In 2023, the initiative raised $1.82 billion for climate resilience and environmental restoration. The first auction in 2024 raised an additional $136 million, with further auctions planned. This support is critical for continuing programs aimed at adapting to climate change, conserving biodiversity, and protecting populations vulnerable to its effects. However, not everyone considers the CCA a success. Supporters of the repeal said that the law imposed a “hidden gas tax” and raised energy prices without providing significant environmental advantages. According to data from The Associated Press, the average price of gasoline in Washington reached $5.54 per gallon in February 2023, prompting claims that the law was financially oppressive. Voters reject repeal, support climate funding Critics of the repeal pointed out that eliminating the CCA would not necessarily cut gas prices and would instead eliminate a major source of money for climate adaptation. Despite the unsuccessful repeal, the program remains intact, supporting initiatives that improve environmental protection and build Washington’s climate resilience. Washington’s commitment to climate action now sits alongside similar initiatives in California and Quebec, both of which created connected cap-and-investment programs in 2014. The three nations are now discussing future coordination to achieve their common climate goals. Future of climate action in Washington Washington’s vote comes at a critical time for climate action in the United States. Following Donald Trump’s recent election to a second term as President, many analysts anticipate minimal federal support for climate policy. According to Alice Hill, a senior scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Trump’s victory presents a real obstacle in the global fight against climate change.” She noted that under Trump’s leadership, the federal government is likely to curtail measures to reduce emissions while increasing fossil fuel production. Despite this national outlook, Hill expressed optimism in state-led efforts like Washington’s, stating, “The power of state-level action should not be undermined, with significant progress made at sub-national level in some states. Local political and regulatory intervention will be critical in the fight for a healthier planet — with or without support from the Trump administration.” Washington’s commitment to its climate program serves as a reminder that states can take the lead in lowering emissions and creating a sustainable future even in the absence of federal action. As the Climate Commitment Act continues to succeed on both environmental and financial fronts, Washington’s example may inspire other states to pursue similar programs, strengthening US climate action from the ground up.The post Washington voters uphold groundbreaking climate law, a victory for climate action first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM In the records of Indian folklore, there is a timeless story about six blind men discovering an elephant for the first time. As each man touches a different part of the elephant – its trunk, tusk, or tail — they generate vastly different conceptions of the creature. “It’s like a snake,” one exclaims, while another believes it’s like a tree trunk. This parable shows our tendency to see reality through narrow perspectives. As psychologist Tenelle Porter affirms, “When we’re more engaged and listening to the other side, the disagreements tend to be more constructive.” The power of intellectual humility: expert perspectives Intellectual humility goes beyond conventional modesty; it represents a deep openness to new ideas and a willingness to learn from others. Tenelle Porter, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rowan University, extols its merits, pointing out that intellectually humble people are not only better learners but also excellent at civil discourse. In an era marked by information overload and ideological polarization, maintaining intellectual humility is critical for generating true knowledge and personal development. According to Laszlo Bock, Google’s former VP of Hiring, intellectual humility is a desirable trait in candidates. “Without intellectual humility, you are unable to learn,” he emphasizes. Embracing growth mindsets as a path to lifelong learning Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck’s concept of a development mindset is critical for developing intellectual humility. According to Porter, “This kind of belief can be very threatening because it risks branding people as, sort of, losers in the intellectual lottery.” In contrast, adopting a growth mindset opens up a world of possibilities, allowing people to thrive and adapt to adversity. Wisdom in humility: the intersection of learning and virtue Psychologists Ethan Kross and Igor Grossmann administered a study in 2012 that discovered a link between intellectual humility and wisdom. Kross and Grossmann emphasize the necessity of understanding one’s own knowledge limitations and cultivating a prosocial mindset. Intellectual humility, they argue, enhances social well-being and community concord. Navigating bias and prejudice: overcoming cognitive blind spots Our cognitive biases frequently distort our perspective of reality, causing us to overestimate our objectivity. According to Porter, recognizing this prejudice blind spot is critical for developing intellectual humility. By honestly accepting our prejudices, we open ourselves to other views and enrich our understanding of the world. Bridging divides: practicing intellectual humility in everyday life In an era of polarization, intellectual humility provides a road to productive discourse and collaboration. Individuals can bridge party divides and promote greater understanding by actively listening to other points of view. Porter sees intellectual humility as a motivator for positive interactions and effective problem-solving. Developing empathy: from emotional to intellectual connections Empathy promotes emotional resonance, whereas intellectual humility improves our connection with others. Writer Lisa Miller’s investigation of empathy in “Guns and Empathy” emphasizes the value of intellectual connection in transcending ideological divides. By practicing intellectual humility, we foster true understanding and mutual respect in our interactions.The post What is intellectual humility? How intellectual humility unlocks learning and understanding first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Remember, it’s not about keeping score, but about strengthening your relationship.

Addiction doesn’t have to be the defining voice in your life. Dare to believe this truth: God promises to work through the prayers of the faithful. God promises to be endlessly forgiving and eternally patient. God promises to heal.

Last week, election night was a roaring success for the GOP as the party grabbed the presidency and a majority in the Senate. When the rest of the votes are in, they’ll probably keep control of the House as well. It was harder to tell how the pro-life movement did. Three states that voted for Kamala Harris also voted to amend their constitutions to protect abortion, as you might expect. Two states that voted for Donald Trump rejected measures to expand abortion. One state that voted for Trump—Nebraska—voted to keep the current 12-week ban and not to legalize through viability. And four states that voted for Trump—Arizona, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada—also chose to expand or maintain access to abortion, though Nevada needs another vote in 2026 before it takes effect. Missouri had the smallest passing margin of the night—51.6 percent to 48.4 percent—and was the toughest pro-life loss, erasing all restrictions the state had put in place during the Roe years. Those disappointing losses suggest a further decoupling of pro-life issues from Republican values. This summer, the GOP rewrote its platform. For the first time in 40 years, it didn’t affirm that “the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.” Instead, Republicans wrote that “states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those Rights.” “That’s the platform that just won,” said Care Net CEO Roland Warren. “Here’s the problem: it’s going to be incredibly difficult to get Republicans to go back to the old position.” Other pro-life organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Americans United for Life (AUL), endorsed the platform. In a statement, AUL said it “worked closely with the [Republican National Committee] on developing platform language that preserves reference to the Fourteenth Amendment while updating the language to our post-Roe world.” Overall, pro-life leaders seem cautiously optimistic about the election results. The state victories were the first legislative wins since Dobbs overturned Roe in 2022. Not only that, but Harris’s loss “is a clear rejection of the extreme abortion agenda that she made the centerpiece of her campaign,” stated March for Life president Jeanne Mancini. Running on Abortion Before the Dobbs decision overturned the national right to an abortion, the Democrat and Republican parties each spent between 2 and 3 percent of their ad campaigns on addressing abortion. After Dobbs, the Republican spending allocation didn’t change much. But the Democrat spending on abortion ads skyrocketed—in both 2022 and the first half of 2024, they spent between 28 and 38 percent of their national budget on abortion ads. In some states (Michigan and Arizona) more than half of Democratic ads were about abortion. In Georgia, it was more than 90 percent. “Kamala Harris made abortion her No. 1 issue, the focus of the [Democratic National Committe], to the point where they were doing abortions in buses outside the DNC convention—and she lost,” said 40 Days for Life CEO Shawn Carney. In fact, Harris won a smaller margin of female votes than Joe Biden in 2020 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. “That should give confidence to people worried about abortion—you can be pro-life and win,” Carney said. “Look at [pro-life Florida governor] DeSantis. He won big in 2022, five months after Dobbs. He owned and defended the Heartbeat Bill [which prohibits abortions in Florida after a heartbeat is detected], and he just won big with Amendment 4 [where voters rejected a pro-abortion constitutional amendment].” DeSantis campaigned energetically against Amendment 4 and was firm in his stance even when Trump, a Florida resident, wavered in his support for it and wouldn’t say how he voted on it. With a clear message and strong leadership, DeSantis is proving it’s possible to be a pro-life politician after Dobbs, Carney said. He certainly is—in Florida, pro-life advocates spent $12 million to oppose the amendment. Pro-abortion advocates spent $118 million. But DeSantis is an outlier. This year, most Republicans didn’t work as hard on their abortion messaging as the Democrats did. Money and Messaging In nearly every other state, the side that spent the most money to support or oppose a ballot initiative won. In South Dakota, pro-life supporters outspent pro-abortion supporters, and their side won. In New York, Nevada, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, and Arizona, pro-abortion proponents spent, on average, more than 23 times the amount of pro-life advocates. In each case, the pro-abortion vote won. A lot of the ads were untrue, said Erik Baptist, director of the Center for Life with Alliance Defending Freedom. “Every state allows doctors to treat women experiencing life-threatening pregnancy complications, including miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. Any statement to the contrary is flatly false. . . . The pro-life movement must respond to these lies and educate the public on how pro-life laws protect both women’s health and unborn life.” “It’s a messaging problem,” Carney said. It’s a little more than that. After Roe, pro-life Republicans have struggled to find the next clear goal to unite around. The backlash to Dobbs makes things even more slippery. Some, including Missouri senator Josh Hawley and former Nevada senator Sam Brown, affirmed their personal pro-life convictions but said they’d vote against a national abortion ban. The American people also seem to be unclear on their position. Nearly a third of adults say they believe embryos are people with rights and that the decision to abort belongs solely to the pregnant woman. Carney sees an opportunity here. As the message of the left becomes more extreme, such as opposing all restrictions and including gender transition in its fight for “bodily autonomy,” it creates more room for a reasonable pro-life voice. “Over the last 20 years, the pro-life side has become the pro-science side, the common-sense side, the compassionate side,” Carney said. At least some people are willing to hear it. The pro-life victories in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska were important. In 2022 and 2023—the two elections after Dobbs—the pro-abortion vote had dominated all seven state ballot initiatives. “This election stopped the bleeding,” Carney said. “We finally had some victories. And the further we get from Dobbs, the easier this will get, because people are realizing the world didn’t end when Roe was overturned. Every day that passes, not having a universal right to abortion becomes more normal.” A Republican president won’t hurt either. Trump Trump isn’t exactly a pro-life president. But he’s not exactly pro-abortion either. On the campaign trail, he and JD Vance have said Trump would veto a national abortion ban, that he wouldn’t, and then that he would. Their stance on defunding Planned Parenthood has been confusing. And Trump has indicated he’s open to curbing access to the abortion pills—or not. But pro-life leaders point out that he was the president who set up the overturn of Roe. And his administration won’t harass the pro-life movement. “We had a big problem with the Department of Justice under Biden,” Carney said. In July, a federal court sentenced a 33-year-old mom to three and a half years in prison for protesting outside a New York abortion clinic. In September 2022, two dozen FBI agents arrested Mark Houck, the president of a Catholic ministry and a 40 Days volunteer, and charged him with two felonies for pushing a foul-mouthed abortion escort away from Houck’s young son. In March 2021, the Justice Department charged six pro-life protesters who were singing and praying in a hallway leading to an abortion clinic; one was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Meanwhile, when more than 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers across the country were vandalized after the Dobbs decision, few arrests were made. The discrepancy was so clear that multiple members of Congress repeatedly asked US attorney general Merrick Garland for an explanation. At the same time, the Biden administration tried to block pregnancy centers from receiving federal funds by deeming them ineligible recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. “Clearly, this administration will be dramatically better from that perspective,” Warren said. Gospel Issue Whether disappointed or optimistic after the election, pro-life leaders aren’t planning to stop or even slow their work. “CareNet and Heartbeat and 40 Days for Life are more needed than ever,” Carney said. “The demand for 40 Days has skyrocketed since the overturning of Roe.” Without a federal law, the movement is “market driven,” he said. “It’s about hearts and minds. We need to have focus and clarity and put our foot on the gas.”

In this lecture, Don Carson examines Ezekiel’s prophetic vision from God as recorded in Ezekiel 4–5. The prophet’s actions symbolize Jerusalem’s impending judgment because of their sin, and Carson highlights the inevitability of God’s wrath and the need for repentance. He points to the seriousness of God’s judgment in the Old Testament and the ultimate display of God’s justice and mercy in the New Testament, particularly through the cross. He teaches the following: Ezekiel’s prophetic actions convey the severity of God’s coming judgment God’s wrath is a necessary consequence of the people’s wickedness Why we must understand repentance How Ezekiel 4–5 fits into the context of the Bible’s metanarrative The problem of humanity’s sin requires a divine solution The cross is the ultimate expression of God’s justice and mercy

It took about a week of self-containment after the election, but the media are back to their old, hectoring ways. The Regime Media have broken out in full contempt over President Elect Donald Trump's selection of combat veteran Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Watch as CNN Senior Political Commentator Scott Jennings absolutely NUKES the panel: CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP 11/12/24 10:06 PM SCOTT JENNINGS: Does anybody have confidence in the current leadership of the Pentagon and the way the defense situation has been operating for the last several years? I mean- from the Afghanistan pullout, which was an extreme debacle for which no one was held accountable. We’ve had spy balloons flying over the United States. We built a $300 million pier as a public relations stunt which wound up killing an American service member. I’d say I’ve had just about enough of the so-called insiders running the Defense Department and I think we ought to give Pete Hegseth a chance. CARL BERNSTEIN: You think that’s about- that’s about insiders? JENNINGS: All the criticism of him is that he’s not the expected Washington pick and I am just saying to you that the American people just voted against the expected Washington pick. So I- he’s got 20 years in service. Afghanistan, Iraq. two Bronze Stars, Princeton, Harvard. Yeah, he’s on TV but so are the rest of us, and I think he ought to be given a chance.  The narrative emerging online and in the media is “Trump nominated the Fox and Friends host to head the DoD.” This is done in order to frame the pick as both a joke and a "Shattering of the Norms”, and to disqualify Hegseth in the court of public opinion.  Never mind that Hegseth has served for over 20 years, has multiple combat tours, and has been a tireless advocate for veterans. The panel tried to come at Jennings with these credentialist arguments and Jennings absolutely unloaded, by reminding them of the recent and very high-profile failures of the credentialed DoD leadership. As Bonchie from RedState noted in a similar argument: The risks of picking Peter Hegseth to head the Pentagon are too great. I mean, we could end up with spy balloons flying over the country, disastrous pull-outs from warzones, Russia invading Europe, Iran expanding, and a recruitment crisis. Best go with another DoD insider. — Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) November 13, 2024 Hegseth himself has expressed thoughtful takes on, for example, our readiness to confront China: ? Meet Pete Hegseth, your new Secretary of Defense: “The Pentagon runs perfect war game simulations, we lose every time to China… They’re building an army…We have our heads up our asses.” Pete is an old school American first warrior. pic.twitter.com/KpWXE6dCjQ — Autism Capital ? (@AutismCapital) November 13, 2024 None of that got discussed because the focus was on the aesthetics of credentials. The rest of the Hegseth discussion centered on his desire to remove “woke” generals from their posts. It is entirely reasonable to want to put warfighters back in the business of warfighting, which might be hampered by pronoun enforcement among other things. Good on Jennings for calling out this nonsense. There will be plenty more ahead.  

"Knowing a little chemistry can go a long way to getting your clothes clean."

Our goal is more vital than ever.

Politics A First Hundred Days Agenda for Trump’s FP Personnel, not just policy or processes, is key to a successful Trump second term. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses,” Henry Kissinger said in 2018, in one of his last major profiles in a major newspaper. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.”  I was thinking of the quote when I toured New York with my visiting parents a few months back and our taxi driver, an elderly Chinese-American gentleman, was arguing how New York would turn red for the first time in a generation and vote for Trump. When asked about whether he worries about a trade war with China, he argued that, one, it is nothing compared to millions of criminals having free run of the cities of the United States, and two, that a real war with Russia is far worse than a trade war with China. Trump ended up earning 44 percent of total New York votes, with unthinkable swings in the working-class areas of Bronx and Brooklyn. Trump even won a precinct in New York’s Chinatown/Two Bridges neighborhood by 51 to 48 percent.  Political analysis is a funny job, as given the nature of our trade (and the personal stakes, in my case), it is usually a combination of clearing out your own biases as much as humanly possible in a field that remains, despite many liberal cries, not a science, but an art. But when a man destroys the most common myths of political analysis, then he has to be considered at least close to Kissinger’s idea of a major figure in history. Trump broke every single nugget of political wisdom one might have held dear, including those of his supporters.  Consider these following statements. Trump won the greatest support among Hispanics in over a quarter century. He had record breaking support among Asians and Indians, running against a candidate who was herself half Indian. He wrested over 10 percent of black votes from a candidate who was herself half black. He turned California the reddest it’s been since the 1980s. New Jersey and Minnesota may now be considered battleground states, more so than North Carolina or Arizona.  None of the myths about Trump’s winning message were true. He didn’t have to be an ethno-nationalist; in fact, he made the Republicans more multiracial than a Romney or a Bush would ever have dreamed of. He turned working-class places even in once-solid blue states completely red. He got the Muslim vote locked up running against Republican orthodoxy on Israel, and got the veteran’s votes locked up running against “forever wars.”  Most importantly, on a macro level, he proved a couple of things. First, people don’t really care about abstractions like “democracy.” In fact, a corollary may be that normal people don’t really care about democracy in particular at all, despite relentless propaganda. They care much more about the tangible goods of foreign policy, immigration, and the economy. To paraphrase Peter Thiel, liberty and democracy need not be parallel or even compatible. The people like technocracy or even aristocracy, but a competent one, one that takes care of their core concerns: a good life, good jobs, secure borders, and no foreign wars. Second, the power of the mainline media and academia is almost totally broken, due to their self-created echo chambers. The academy and the mainstream media need reckonings for what they wrought. Consider the number of “historian here” posts on Twitter (now X) and consider just how disconnected they are from the trend lines; you get a fair idea of why academic and even public history is so irreparably doomed. This is not just a lament, but an opportunity to rebuild as well. Trump’s election will bring about an ignominious end to “resistance” history and media.  What is to be done? As my colleague Jude Russo wrote, the work is only beginning. Winning isn’t everything, although it is a preferable start to losing. For all those who are hyper-optimistic and complacent, I’d like to remind them that Trump also “won” in 2016. Yet not much changed. For an easy way to understand why during the last term my own field of foreign policy was such a disaster, consider this particular report: “I think there’s a new inner circle around Trump that is pushing him toward allowing Putin, Xi Jinping, and Iran to kind of do whatever they want to do, into a new isolationist approach, which we really haven’t seen before,” said a Republican national security strategist who held a senior post in the first Trump administration.  Trump campaigned against embroiling the U.S. in “forever wars” and has voiced skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to push Russian forces off their lands. Carlson and other public personalities who backed Trump, such as the venture capitalist and podcaster David Sacks, have argued that U.S. and NATO military deployments essentially forced Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. Israeli media has reported that Trump wants Israel to wrap up its war in the Gaza Strip by the time of his inauguration.  There’s also a growing concern that Trump may rely mainly on political loyalists rather than seasoned national security staffers. It’s a temptation he largely resisted during his first term, though he moved in that direction toward its end. “Don Jr. and Grenell and Tucker have his ear in a way that’s very dangerous,” the first Republican leader told The Free Press on Sunday, referring to Ric Grenell, a close campaign adviser and former ambassador to Germany.” The transition and staffing are still in their formative stage, but there are a couple of things in the field of foreign policy that the president-elect should keep in mind for his first hundred days. Foreign policy is the key. One of the good first fights for the Republicans to have is not staffing, which will continue, but to stop the Ukraine supplemental bills. Enough money has been siphoned off to Ukraine, and it is an issue that is toxic to the core electorate that voted in the Trump/Vance team. President Joe Biden, along with the lame-duck Congress, will want to forgive Ukrainian debts and pass more aid for Ukraine in the next few months. There is no better way to say this, but that needs to be stopped by any means necessary. The instinct of the current foreign policy blob will be to box the incoming administration in by siphoning off funds and by placing personnel in harm’s way. The idea is to create a contingency where the money keeps flowing and there’s some loss of personnel which then appeals to the baser impulses of a vengeful electorate. Anyone in the congress who sides with Biden to push for further money or manpower in Ukraine should be held complicit in the conspiracy to push the United States further into Europe, against the mandate which is clear about a retrenchment from that continent.  Second, the Office of Management and Budget should be the key to any appropriation fight in future. Omnibus bills should be broken up or vetoed, if necessary. Spending fights will be vital, as the bureaucracy gets what it desires by adding a fair amount of bad to the good.  Third, there’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the paradigm and shape foreign policy in Europe. Of all theaters, that is one ripe for a change. Europe is rich and capable. Russia has been proven not to be a hegemonic threat. And, for the U.S., Asia and Latin America are both more important theaters than Europe. A simple recipe is to force burden sharing on Europe by pulling out and reversing the Biden surge in the first hundred days.  Fourth, there’s a handy list of over a thousand personnel who opposed Trump and endorsed Harris in the current and former nat-sec community, who have security clearances that can be instantly and permanently revoked.  Finally, match skillsets and talents to posts. Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, Mike Lee, and Warren Davidson should each be part of any incoming admin.  These are but a start. Of course, the incoming cabinet will never look like an editorial meeting of the International Security journal. But more than policy, or even processes, personnel is key. This time let there be no mistakes. The post A First Hundred Days Agenda for Trump’s FP appeared first on The American Conservative.