When Donald Trump first stepped into the political arena, many saw his entry as little more than yet another way to raise his public profile profile and get his face in front of more cameras. As time went on, however, and other Republican presidential candidates began to drop out of the presidential race left and right, those who may not have initially considered Trump a serious contender for the highest office in the land were forced to reconsider.
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.
Star rookie Chris Borland’s retirement is causing reverberations this week, leading many to ask, are football’s risks worth its rewards? In 2012, Intelligence Squared U.S. debated the risks of college football with Malcolm Gladwell, Buzz Bissinger, Tim Green and Jason Whitlock. The debate sold out so quickly and garnered so much pre-debate publicity, even we were taken by surprise. Once again, a growing concern over safety has put football’s future back in the spotlight.
Question from Moderator John Donvan:
You’ve been an insurance executive, and number two, you’ve been a lawyer. And you, looking at this topic, those two perspectives gave you kind of interesting insight on this. So start with the insurance executive side of it first.