The “Clean Power Plan” was devised by President Barack Obama to help fight the effects of climate change, and it involved having each U.S. state reduce its carbon-dioxide output by 30 percent by the year 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency is the governing body tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, but increasing controversy surrounding the measure has led many to take a closer look at its tenets and whether the EPA may, in this case, be overstepping.
To reduce emissions as required by the plan, American businesses must comply with specific EPA regulations. Some believe that doing so will hinder the nation’s stance as a pillar of industry by limiting output and forcing companies to rely on technologies that have not yet been thoroughly tested for safety or efficacy. Others believe that the United States has a duty to lead the rest of the world in terms of working to prevent climate change, and that, rather than prove a hindrance, forced compliance with the Clean Power plan will encourage innovation.
Critics of corporate subsidies argue that it’s outrageous to have taxpayer money feeding into the wealth of corporate entities. Others contend that strategic subsidizing is necessary to vitalize innovation and serve those not served by private interests.
Do subsidies fill an important role in the public interest, or is it time to pull the plug on what some have termed corporate welfare?
There are some today who argue that colleges and universities have arrived at a point in time where the directive to create a more inclusive space has actually produced an atmosphere less tolerant of diverse opinion.
Does the removal of offensive language or images amount to suppression of free speech?
As an investor, I once financed a group of computer scientists applying machine learning and statistical analysis to outperform the stock market.It took us four or five years to beat the averages by mere hundredths of a percent. This was not a huge advantage. On the other hand, our small team of six was outperforming teams that would typically employ hundreds of professional analysts and portfolio managers.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans subscribe to creationism—the belief that, approximately 10,000 years ago, God created humans as we are today. In total, half of Americans believe that humans evolved over time, with 31 percent holding the opinion that God guided this evolution, and 19 percent believing that evolution took place without the aid of a higher power. Despite the strength of creationism’s appeal, the portion of the American public that believes in evolution independent of any type of God has doubled since 1999. This seems to have only fueled the debate between science and religion. For many, a belief in God provides the only answer to such existential inquiries as, “How did we get here?” and “What is our purpose?” while others find that modern science contradicts religion’s most basic principles. Intelligence Squared US (IQ2US) took on this highly divisive topic on December 5, 2012, questioning whether science and religion can coexist with a debate on the motion, “Science Refutes God.”