An estimated 815 million children (one in three) around the globe have dangerous levels of lead in their bloodstream, levels high enough to cause irreversible brain damage and impose severe health, economic, and societal consequences. 96% of these children live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where collectively only about $6–10 million from non-governmental organizations is available each year to address the problem. To help eliminate childhood lead poisoning worldwide, the U.S. Federal Government should (1) add blood lead level (BLL) testing to the USAID-led Demographic and Health Survey Program, (2) create a Grand Challenge for Development to end childhood lead poisoning, and (3) push forward a global treaty on lead control.

Challenge and Opportunity

Lead is a potent toxin that causes irreversible harm to children’s brains and vital organs. Elevated body lead levels result in reduced intelligence, lower educational attainment, behavioral disorders, violent crime, reduced lifetime earnings, anemia, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. Impacts of lead on cognitive development are estimated to cause nearly $1 trillion of income loss in LMICs annually. Adverse health effects related to lead poisoning account for 1% of the global disease burden, causing 1 million deaths annually and substantial disability.

This enormous burden of lead poisoning in LMICs is preventable. It results from a combination of sources of exposure, some of the most important being:

• Lead that is intentionally added to paint, spices, cookware, and cosmetics.
• Lead that contaminates the environment from unsafe lead-acid battery and e-waste recycling practices.
• Lead that contaminates drinking water from pipes.

These sources of lead exposure have been effectively regulated in the United States and other high-income countries, which have seen average blood lead levels in their populations decline dramatically over the last 40 years. To achieve the same success, LMICs will need to prioritize policies such as:

• Regulation limiting the lead content of paint available on the market. 
• Regulation of lead-acid battery and e-waste recycling. 
• Inclusion of lead parameters in national drinking-water-quality standards. 
• Regulation of the use of lead compounds in other locally important sources, such as spices, ceramics, cookware, toys, and cosmetics. 

LMICs generally face three major barriers to implementing such policies:

1. Lack of data on blood lead levels and on the scale and severity of lead poisoning. Most LMICs have no studies measuring blood lead levels. Policymakers are therefore unaware of the extent of the problem and hence unlikely to act in response. 
2. Lack of data on which sources of lead exposure are the biggest local contributors. Causes of lead poisoning vary spatially, but the vast majority of LMICs have not conducted source-apportionment studies. This makes it difficult to prioritize the most impactful policies. 
3. Limited access to equipment needed to detect lead in paint, spices, water, other sources, or the environment. Without needed detection capabilities, regulators cannot investigate the lead content of potential sources, nor can they monitor and enforce regulation of known sources. 

These barriers are relatively simple to overcome, and when they are overcome do indeed result in action. As an example, at least 20 LMICs introduced legally binding lead paint regulation after the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint and its partners helped those countries confirm that lead paint was an important source of lead poisoning. Moreover, addressing childhood lead poisoning is in line with the priorities of the Biden Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The Administration has already proposed an ambitious $15 billion plan to address childhood lead poisoning in the United States by eliminating lead pipes and service lines. By contributing to global elimination efforts (for only a fraction of what it will cost to solve the problem domestically), the Administration can multiply its impact on reducing childhood lead poisoning. Doing so would also advance USAID’s mission of “advanc[ing] a free, peaceful, and prosperous world”, since a reduction in childhood lead poisoning worldwide would improve health, strengthen economies, and prevent crime and conflict.

Plan of Action

Lead poisoning, from a variety of sources, affects one in three children worldwide. This is an unacceptable situation that demands action. The United States should adopt a three-part roadmap to help LMICs implement and enforce policies needed to achieve global elimination of childhood lead poisoning. 

Recommendation 1. Add blood lead level (BLL) testing to the USAID-led Demographic and Health Survey. 

USAID, through its Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), is in an ideal position to address the first barrier that LMICs face to implementing anti-lead poisoning policies: lack of data and awareness. The DHS collects, analyzes, and disseminates accurate and representative data on health in over 90 countries. Including BLL testing in the DHS would:

• Make accurate and representative data on the prevalence and severity of lead poisoning in LMICs available for the first time.
• Draw national and international attention to the immense burdens that childhood lead poisoning continues to impose. 
• Determine which LMIC populations are most impacted by childhood lead poisoning.
• Motivate interventions to target the most impacted populations and most important sources of exposure.
• Support quantitative evaluation of interventions that aim to reduce lead exposure.

As such, USAID should add BLL testing of children into the DHS Biomarker Questionnaire for all host countries. This could be done in DHS revision for Phase 9, beginning in 2023. Including BLL testing in the DHS is also the first step to addressing the second barrier that LMICs face: lack of data on sources of lead exposure. BLL data collected through the DHS would reveal which countries and populations have the greatest lead burdens. These data can be leveraged by researchers, governments, and NGOs to investigate key sources of lead exposure.

BLL testing of children is feasible to carry out in the context of the DHS. It was successfully piloted in 1998 and 2002 via the DHS presence in India and Uzbekistan, but not rolled out further. Testing can be carried out using finger-stick capillary sampling and portable analyzers, so venipuncture and laboratory analysis are not required. Further, such testing can be carried out by health technicians who are already trained in capillary blood testing of children for anemia as part of the DHS. The testing can be conducted while questionnaires are administered, and results and any follow-up actions can be shared with the parent/guardian immediately. Alternatively, laboratory lead tests can be added onto sample analysis if blood draws are already being taken. Costs are low in both cases, estimated at around $10 per test. 

Recommendation 2. Create a Grand Challenge for Development to end childhood lead poisoning.

Childhood lead poisoning in LMICs is dramatically neglected relative to the scale of the problem. Though childhood lead poisoning costs LMICs nearly $1 trillion annually and accounts for 1% of the global disease burden, only about $6–10 million per year is dedicated to addressing the problem. A USAID-led Grand Challenge for Development to end childhood lead poisoning would mobilize governments, companies, and foundations around generating and implementing solutions. In particular, the Challenge should encourage solutions to the second and third barriers presented above: lack of data on sources of lead exposure and limited detection capacity. 

Recommendation 3. Push forward a global treaty on lead control.

A global push is needed to put childhood lead poisoning on the radar of decision-makers across the world and spur implementation and enforcement of policies to address the issue. The Biden Administration should lead an international conference to develop a global treaty on lead control. Such a treaty would set safe standards for lead in a variety of products (building on the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint’s toolkit for establishing lead-paint laws) and recommend regulatory measures to control sources of lead exposure. The success of the UN’s Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles in bringing about global elimination of leaded gasoline illustrates that international political will to act can indeed be generated around lead pollution. 

Conclusion

By implementing this three-part roadmap the Biden administration and USAID can make a historic and catalytic contribution towards global elimination of lead poisoning. There is true urgency; the problem becomes harder to solve each year as more lead enters the environment where it will remain a source of exposure for decades to come.  Acting now will improve the health, wellbeing and potential of hundreds of millions of children. 

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should deploy a national network of low-cost, co-located, real-time greenhouse gas (GHG) and air-pollution emission sensors in 300 American cities by 2030 to help communities address environmental inequities, combat global warming, and improve public health. Urban areas contribute more than 70% of total GHG emissions. Aerosols and other byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion — the major drivers of poor air quality — are emitted in huge quantities alongside those GHGs. A “300 by ‘30” initiative establishing a national network of local, ground-level sensors will provide precise and customized information to drive critical climate and air-quality decisions and benefit neighborhoods, schools, and businesses in communities across the nation. Ground-level dense sensor networks located in community neighborhoods also provide a resource that educators can leverage to engage students on co-created “real-time and actionable science”, helping the next generation see how science and technology can contribute to solving our country’s most challenging issues.

Challenge and Opportunity

U.S. cities contribute 70% of our nation’s GHG emissions and have more concentrated air pollutants that harm neighborhoods and communities unequally. Climate change profoundly impacts human health and wellbeing through drought, wildfire, and extreme-weather events, among numerous other impacts. Microscopic air pollutants, which penetrate the body’s respiratory and circulatory systems, play a significant role in heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and asthma. These diseases collectively cost Americans $800 billion annually in medical bills and result in more than 100,000 Americans dying prematurely each year. Also, health impacts are experienced more acutely for certain communities. Some racial groups and poorer households, especially those located near highways and industry, face higher exposure to harmful air pollutants than others, deepening health inequities across American society. 

GHG emissions and ground-level air pollution are both negative products of fossil-fuel combustion and are inextricably linked. But our nation lacks a comprehensive approach to measure, monitor, and mitigate these drivers of climate change and air pollution. Furthermore, key indicators of air quality — such as ground-level pollutant measurements — are not typically considered alongside GHG measurements in governmental attempts to regulate emissions. A coordinated and data-driven approach across government is needed to drive policies that are ambitious enough to simultaneously and equitably tackle both the climate crisis and worsening air-quality inequities in the United States.

Technologies that are coming down in cost enable ground-level, real-time, and neighborhood-scale observations of GHG and air-pollutant levels. These data support cost-effective mapping of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air-quality related emissions (such as PM2.5, ozone, CO, and nitrogen oxides) to aid in forecasting local air quality, conducting GHG inventories, detecting pollution hotspots, and assessing the effectiveness of policies designed to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions. The result can be more successful, targeted strategies to reduce climate impacts, improve human health, and ensure environmental equity.

Pilot projects are proving the value of hyper-local GHG and air-quality sensor networks. Multiple universities, philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have launched pilot projectsdeploying local, real-time GHG and air-pollutant sensors in cities including Los Angeles, New York City, Houston, TX, Providence, RI, and cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for instance, a dense network of 70 sensors enabled researchers to closely investigate how movement patterns changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observations from local air-quality sensors could be used to evaluate policies aimed at increasing electric-vehicle deployment, to demonstrate how CO and NOx emissions from vehicles change day to day, and to prove that emissions from heavy-duty trucks disproportionately impact lower-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color. The federal government can and should incorporate lessons learned from these pilot projects in designing a national network of air-quality sensors in cities across the country. 

Components of a national air-quality sensor network are in place. On-the-ground sensor measurements provide essential ground-level, high-spatial-density measurements that can be combined with data from satellites and other observing systems to create more accurate climate and air-quality maps and models for regions, states, and the country. Through sophisticated computational models, for instance, weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are already being combined with existing satellite data and data from ground-level dense sensor networks to help locate sources of GHG emissions and air-pollution in cities throughout the day and across seasons. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on improving these measurements and models by encouraging development of standards for low-cost sensor data. Finally, data from pilot projects referenced above is being used on an ad hoc basis to inform policy. Data showing that CO₂ emissions from the vehicle fleet are decreasing faster than expected in cities with granular emissions monitoring are that policies designed to reduce GHG emissions are working as or better than intended. Federal leadership is needed to bring the impacts of such insights to scale on larger and even more impactful levels.

A national network of hyper-local GHG and air-quality sensors will contribute to K–12 science curricula. The University of California, Berkeley partnered with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the GLOBE educational program. The program provides ideas and materials for K–12 activities related to climate education and data literacy that leverage data from dense local air-quality sensor networks. Data from a national air-quality sensor network would expand opportunities for this type of place-based learning, motivating students with projects that incorporate observations occurring on the roof of their schools or nearby in their neighborhoods to investigate the atmosphere, climate, and use of data in scientific analyses.Scaling a national network of local GHG and air-quality sensors to include hundreds of cities will yield major economies of scale. A national air-quality sensor network that includes 300 American cities — essentially, all U.S. cities with populations greater than 100,000 — will drive down sensor costs and drive up sensor quality by growing the relevant market. Scaling up the network will also lower operational costs of merging large datasets, interpreting those data, and communicating insights to the public. This city-federal collaboration would provide validated data needed to prove which national and local policies to improve air quality and reduce emissions work, and to weed out those that don’t. 

Plan of Action

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in partnership with the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) should lead a $100 million “300 by ’30: The American City Urban Air Challenge” to deploy low-cost, real-time, ground-based sensors by the year 2030 in all 300 U.S. cities with populations greater than 100,000 residents.

The initiative could be organized and managed by region through an expanded NOAA Regional Collaboration Network, under the auspices of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. NOAA is responsible for weather and air-quality forecasting and already manages a large suite of global CO₂ and global air-quality-related observations along with local weather observations. In a complementary manner, the “300 by ‘30” sensor network would measure CO₂, CO (carbon monoxide), NO (nitric oxide), NO₂ (nitrogen dioxide), O₃ (ozone), and PM2.5 (particulate matter down to 2.5 microns in size) at the neighborhood scale. “300 by ‘30” network operators would coordinate data integration and management within and across localities and report findings to the public through a uniform portal maintained by the federal government. Overall, NOAA would coordinate sensor deployment, network integration and data management and manage the transition from research to operations. NOAA would also work with NIST and EPA to provide uniform formats for collecting and sharing data.

Though NOAA is the natural agency to lead the “300 by ‘30” initiative, other federal agencies can and should play key supporting roles. NSF can support new approaches to instrument design and major innovations in data and computational science methods for analysis of observations that would transition rapidly to practical deployment. NIST can provide technical expertise and leadership in much-needed standards-setting for GHG measurements. NASA can advance the STEM-education portion of this initiative (see below), showing educators and students how to observe GHGs and air quality in their neighborhoods and how to link ground-level observations to observations made from space. NASA can also work with NOAA to merge high-density ground-level and wide-area space-based datasets. BEA can develop local models to provide the nonpartisan, nonpolitical economic information cities will need to inform urban air-policy decisions triggered by insights from the sensor network. Similarly, the EPA can help guide cities in using climate and air-quality information from the sensor network. The CDC can use network data to better characterize public-health threats related to climate change and air pollution, as well as to coordinate responses with state and local health officials. 

The “300 by ‘30” challenge should be deployed in a phased approach that (i) leverages lessons learned from pilot projects referenced above, and (ii) optimizes cost savings and efficiencies from increasing the number of networked cities. Leveraging its Regional Collaboration Network, NOAA would launch the Challenge in 2023 with an initial cohort of nine cities (one in each of NOAA’s nine regions). The Challenge would expand to 25 cities by 2024, 100 cities by 2027, and all 300 cities by 2030. The Challenge would also be open to participation by states and territories whose largest cities have populations less than 100,000.

The challenge should also build on NASA’s GLOBE program to develop and share K–12 curricula, activities, and learning materials that use data from the sensor network to advance climate education and data literacy and to inspire students to pursue higher education and careers in STEM. NOAA and NSF could provide additional support in promoting observation-based science education in classrooms and museums, illustrating how basic scientific observations of the atmosphere vary by neighborhood and collectively contribute to weather, air-quality, and climate models.

Our roundtable of climate and procurement experts discussed the underutilized role of the federal government as a strategic buyer to overcome market failures in scaling innovative solutions to climate change. Speakers included:

• Andrew Mayock, Federal Chief Sustainability Officer at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
• Thomas Kalil, Chief Innovation Officer at Schmidt Futures
• Dr. Lara Pierpoint, Director of Climate, Actuate
• Jetta Wong, Day One Project Policy Entrepreneur in Residence and SeniorFellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

Initial Perspectives

The session began with remarks from Thomas Kalil (Schmidt Futures), who provided an introduction into procurement levers, or “demand-pull” mechanisms.

• Economists distinguish between push and pull approaches to innovation. The former is an important, traditional feature of government efforts to promote R&D, such as tax credits or grants to a university researcher or firm that covers costs of a project. The latter involves innovative ways to leverage the role of government as a buyer.
• For example, the Falcon 9 rocket, a partnership between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and SpaceX, gave the United States an important capability to send rockets to the International Space Station without being dependent on Russia. The NASA-SpaceX contract used payments that were contingent on meeting key milestones, or “milestone- based payments.” NASA got access to this capability at a fraction of the cost as a “business as usual” approach, such as cost-plus contracts.
• Another example was Operation Warp Speed, which applied Nobel laureate Michael Kremer’s solution of “advanced market commitments” — a guarantee to purchase a given volume of a product that doesn’t exist yet — to the market failure of vaccine development.
• Government should utilize financial contingencies based on success, not failure, by identifying where market failures exist and defining metrics of success and the reward (e.g., prize, purchase order, milestone payment, etc.) This would be a powerful new arrow in our quiver to solve the climate crisis. Ideally, demand-pull mechanisms would create a marketplace for outcomes: someone establishes a goal, industry teams compete to meet this goal, investors bet on these teams, and we see who is successful at reaching finish line.

The session then shifted to a discussion from Andrew Mayock (CEQ) about the Bidenadministration’s key priorities in combatting climate change, along with nascent conversations on procurement.

• The federal government is back in action in the procurement area. From Day One of the administration with Executive Order 14008, the President called on agencies to use our buying power to tackle the climate crisis. The power of the executive order and its impact on movement throughout the federal government is noteworthy. It has helped increase transparency and standards, especially with respect to transitioning the full federal fleet of vehicles to zero emissions.
• On October 7th, the administration released a series of agency climate adaptation and resilience plans to deliver on the President’s Day One goals. The White House Council on Environmental Quality played a key role in defining standards and implementing quality reports.
• More recently, the administration’s Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council has been meeting to improve the rules of the game when it comes to procurement. They released the Federal Acquisition Regulation: Minimizing the Risk of Climate Change in Federal Acquisitions for public comment and would welcome your feedback on this.
• Finally, we plan on releasing a detailed framework for a federal sustainability plan, that will include government footprints over buildings, vehicles, and goods & services and how to move the needle on carbon reduction.The last individual speaker was Dr. Lara Pierpoint (Actuate), who discussed her experiences with the private sector in scaling climate innovation solutions.
• We operate under the assumption that if we have the right innovation and policy formula, climate technology will commercialize at scale. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it will simply take too long. Consider solar energy, which was first developed at Bell Labs and took three decades to arrive at a viable place. Even now, after a series of policies and several more decades, just over two percent of U.S. energy is from solar. We simply do not have this kind of time for each technology.
• We’re getting there, but we need to understand more about how demand-pull mechanisms work and how they can be applied towards key sectors and challenges. For example, it is very expensive to produce carbon-free cement. Mass timber is one way to reduce embodied carbon in buildings, but timber happens to be even more expensive as there isn’t a large supply of materials available domestically. The real problem is that U.S. companies are not convinced the demand for carbon-free cement is there, so they don’t invest.
• Clean hydrogen and grid storage technologies are other examples where demand-pull mechanisms could be applied to incentivize innovation and reach climate goals.

Q&A Panel Discussion

Day One Project Policy Entrepreneur in Residence Jetta Wong (ITIF) moderated the panelist Q&A session, asking the following questions with summarized responses:

If we all agree that demand-pull mechanisms could have an outsized impact on driving climate solutions, what are some of the barriers preventing the widespread adoption of these tools?

Thomas Kalil:

One problem is that we have a shortage of people that know how to design effective demand-pull mechanisms. Then there’s the lack of cultural awareness within agencies over useful examples like Falcon 9 for accomplishing strategic objectives. This has resulted in an underutilization of Other Transactions Agreements — perhaps the broadest laws passed by Congress as it is defined by what it is not (not a grant, not a contract) rather than what it is. Under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, federal agencies can support incentive prizes of up to $50 million, but few agencies are using these authorities for ambitious prizes. Finally, appropriations processes pose another obstacle, as Congress traditionally requires that agencies spend their annual appropriations in two years. But for architecting successful demand-pull mechanisms, agencies may need to disperse these funds over a longer time period. It’s important that Congress consider utilizing “No-year” funding foragency R&D and market-shaping efforts. The private sector has an equally important role. Consider the automotive industry: research by the Boston Consulting Group indicates that if an automobile was made with carbon neutral materials, it would only increase the sticker price by 2%. The federal government has not realized the potential to shift markets in this direction.

Jetta Wong:

During the Obama administration, only one person in the entire agency knew about prizes and challenges; it was her job to teach others. Now the Department of Energy has many people working on these issues, but a lot more opportunities to execute on. We need more people willing to leverage these procurement innovations.

Andrew Mayock:

People, policy, and resources matter most. The CEQ and Administration appreciates that many good civil servants with this know-how have left. We have a people deficit; we need more individuals who possess the right skills to effect the transformation we’re hoping for. In terms of policy, the federal sustainability plan we hope to release soon comments on these issues, and sends a clear signal to markets with goals of carbon-free electricity and emission-free federal vehicles. Finally, on resources, now is an opportune time in Washington with the Build Back Better agenda. It has the ability to turbocharge the federal procurement space into truly solving climate challenges.

Lara Pierpoint:

We also have a structural problem with how the federal government is set up. The Department of Energy is focused on sources of energy, not climate, which has caused an organizational and resource challenge in meeting their climate objectives. The climate challenge is a different problem and requires new experiences. In the previous administration, the Department of Energy actually took a step forward. They had robust conversations with industry players and took a systemic view to thinking about how to unlock new technology pathways. It’s important to acknowledge where industry is coming from, what barriers are in their way, and how we might unlock more pathways for scaling innovations.

Despite these barriers, we know a few agencies have started deploying these tools. How should agencies think about getting this right?

Thomas Kalil:

When it comes to the Other Transaction Authorities, agencies have a large amount of flexibility in terms of how to use it. The authority is there, but agencies either haven’t used it or aren’t using it creatively enough. The goal of these partnerships, in the climate context, needs to be on accelerating the scale of deployment and eliminating the “green premium.” Climate solutions need to be scaled and profitable. The government should be partnering with the consumers of new technologies, not just the producers.

Andrew Mayock:

The “Buy Clean” policy is a critical tool towards making progress on these fronts and agencies should recognize the high-level strategic support for these procurement solutions. We should think more about how to scale up and work with the private sector.

One of the solutions mentioned was for Congress to utilize no-year funding, is there a concern with transparency over this and other demand- pull mechanisms?

Thomas Kalil:

If anything, demand-pull mechanisms require more transparency as the government must get specific about what it wants and when. The sponsor of the prize sets a very clear goal, and the results usually follow from this. Performance-based goals versus “we know it when we see it” is a useful mode of operation. The no-year funding element is important for addressing the appropriations obstacle, so agencies have available pools of funding to disperse at later stages.

Lara Pierpoint:

Milestone-based approaches are a great way to achieve progress with transparency, especially with complex technologies like nuclear power. If you want to get the innovation you need, it’s important to have clarity on regulatory milestones in addition to procurement and other targets. Milestone-based payments offer this support.

If you could challenge the audience to do one thing related to tackling the climate crisis with procurement, what would it be?

Thomas Kalil:

Find technologies that have potential for impact and describe the challenges and opportunities to applying demand-pull mechanisms in those sectors. Get specific. You can read about the different levers on the Day One Project website.

Lara Pierpoint:

For those in the agencies, and outside of government, embrace a broader problem- solving mindset. It’s too easy to fall into climate tech silos. Let’s think about what the end-point is and what tools can help us get there. This will involve an interdisciplinary collaboration across offices and fields, so let’s be open to it.

Andrew Mayock:

We need resources, and if we get them, we’ll figure out the people and policy. Stay tuned for the federal sustainability plan and send us your thoughts!

Follow-up Opportunities

The Day One Project is committed to sourcing diverse ideas from a wide community. We encourage you to stay engaged with us as we cultivate more science and technology policy ideas to set the agenda on industrial policy and beyond.

The Day One Project recently conducted a white-boarding session with 20 PPBE experts. The product of this seminar is the following list of broad questions about the financial barriers to the Department of Defense’s efforts to modernize the US military. These questions, and the research necessary to answer them, can serve as a roadmap for the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Reform’s work.

1. Do PPBE and related resource allocation processes, including the appropriations process, limit the ability of emerging technologies to cross the “valley of death” into operations and contribute to DoD’s inability to compete in time with agile competitors?
2. Is the DoD’s current planning process able to translate future concepts of operations into the programming guidance necessary to develop future warfighting capabilities, or is it overly constrained by the construct of a weapons system program?
3. Does the current emphasis on a predictive requirements system hinder the Department’s ability to rapidly adopt emerging technologies and undermine its use of recent procurement reforms?
4. Is the Department’s reliance on manual data calls, PowerPoint presentations, and PDF spreadsheets hosted on different enterprise systems a hindrance to effective budgetary oversight and digital transparency?
5. Are year-of-execution reprogramming authorities big enough or flexible enough to allow the Department to take advantage of the dynamics of the emerging technology market?
6. Are DoD’s programmatic measures of effectiveness and performance structured to value adherence to original predictions over the potential of unforeseen outcomes? Is the DoD measuring the right things?

The current administration should announce its intention to achieve net-zero soil loss by 2050. This target aligns with President Biden’s plan to “mount a historic, whole-of-Government-approach to combating climate change,” would help fulfill the administration’s commitment to achieving a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050, and is key to protecting our nation’s agricultural productivity.

Healthy soil is essential to food production. Less well recognized is the vital role that soil plays in climate modulation. Soil is the largest terrestrial carbon repository on the planet, containing three times the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere. Soil represents a potential sink for 133 billion tons of carbon (equal to 25 years of U.S. fossil-fuel emissions). Using soil to offset emissions generates significant co-benefits. Carbon sequestration in soil nourishes soil ecosystems by improving soil architecture and increasing water-holding capacity. Deeper and more fertile soil also supports biodiversity and enriches natural habitats adjacent to agricultural land.

Over two-thirds of the United States is grassland, forestland, and cropland. Land practices that increase the amount of carbon stored underground present a relatively low-cost means for President Biden’s administration to pursue its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But lost soil can no longer serve as a carbon repository. And once lost, soil takes centuries to rebuild. Increasingly extreme climate events and soil-degrading industrial farming practices are combining to rapidly deplete our nation’s strategic soil resources. The United States is losing 10.8 tons of fertile soil per hectare per year: a rate that is at least ten times greater than the rate of soil production. At this rate, many parts of the United States will run out of soil in the next 50 years; some regions already have. For example, in the Piedmont region of the eastern United States, farming practices that were inappropriate for the topography caused topsoil erosion and led to the abandonment of agriculture. The northwestern Palouse region has lost 40–50% of its topsoil, and one-third of the Midwest corn belt has lost all of its topsoil.

Soil loss reduces crop yields, destroys species’ habitats that are critical to food production, and causes high financial losses. Once roughly half of the soil is lost from a field, crop yields and nutrient density suffer. Maintaining a desired level of agricultural output then requires synthetic fertilizers that further compromise soil health, unleashing a feedback loop with widespread impacts on air, land, and water quality — impacts that are often disproportionately concentrated in underserved populations.

Climate change and soil erosion create a dual-threat to food production. As climate change progresses, more extreme weather events like intense flooding in the northeastern United States and prolonged drought in the Southwest make farmland less hospitable to production. Concurrently, soil erosion and degradation release soil carbon as greenhouse gases and make crops more vulnerable to extreme weather by weakening the capabilities of plants to fix carbon and deposit it in the soil. Halting soil erosion could reduce emissions, and building stable stores of soil carbon will reduce atmospheric carbon.

Prioritizing soil health and carbon sequestration as a domestic response to the climate and food-security crises is backed by centuries of pre-industrial agricultural practices. Before European occupation of tribal lands and the introduction of “modern agricultural practices,” Indigenous peoples across North America used soil protective practices to produce food while enhancing the health of larger ecosystems. Some U.S. farmers adhere to principles that guide all good soil stewardship — prevent soil movement and improve soil structure. Practices like no-till farming, cover cropping, application of organic soil amendments, and intercropping with deep-rooted prairie plants are proven to anchor soil and can increase its carbon content. In livestock production, regenerative grazing involves moving animals frequently to naturally fertilize the soil while allowing plants to recover and regrow. If all farms implemented these practices, most soil erosion would halt. The challenge is to equip farmers with the knowledge, financial incentives, and flexibility to use soil-protective techniques.

This document recommends a set of actions that the federal government — working with state and local governments, corporations, research institutions, landowners, and farmers — can take towards achieving net-zero soil loss by 2050. These recommendations are supported by policy priorities outlined in President Biden’s Discretionary Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022 and the bipartisan infrastructure deal currently under negotiation in Congress. Throughout, we emphasize the importance of (1) prioritizing storage of stable carbon (i.e., carbon that remains in soils for the long term) and (2) addressing environmental injustices associated with soil erosion by engaging a broad group of stakeholders.

Firm commitments to restore degraded land will establish the United States as an international leader in soil health, help avoid the worst impacts of climate change, strengthen food security, advance environmental justice, and inspire other countries to set similar net-zero targets. The health of our planet and its people depend on soil preservation. Our nation can, and should, lead the way.

Plan of Action

Action 1. Become a signatory of “4 per mille,” the international initiative encouraging countries to collectively increase global soil carbon by 0.4 percent per year.

The United States should officially join the international effort, “4 per mille” (4p1000), and commit to increasing stable soil carbon by at least 0.4 percent per year. By signing onto this effort, President Biden would send a powerful message of appreciation for U.S. conservation farmers and signal to the rest of the world that soil and forest management are important strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Detractors of 4p1000 have raised concerns about its feasibility, measurement, and accountability. These arguments obscure the target’s intent: to motivate a global effort to sequester carbon in soil and avert the worst of anthropogenic climate change. The target gives countries a tangible and common goal to work towards as they identify and implement the soil-carbon sequestration strategies that will work best in their respective domestic environments.

Before COP26, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in partnership with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Biden administration’s climate change leaders (John Kerry and Gina McCarthy), should develop a strategy to accompany the United States’ endorsement of 4p1000 and garner endorsements of the agreement from other nations. A central pillar of this strategy should focus on developing and deploying inexpensive methods to estimate soil carbon. These new tools would help farmers track their net carbon increases and ensure that carbon emissions from soil are not negating their efforts.

This action could be supported by funds allocated to the Department of State for multilateral climate initiatives, Department of Interior funding for ecosystem resilience among all land-management agencies, and USDA’s renewed investment to engage landowners to combat climate change and increase participation in voluntary conservation.

Action 2. Invest in a data repository for agriculture and soil carbon. 

Advances in soil health of agricultural systems, like advances in human health, will depend on the sector’s capacity to aggregate and refine big data. This capacity is needed to develop comprehensive decision-support tools underpinned by hyperlocal data in a publicly accessible and well-maintained database

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service currently supports a data repository through its National Agricultural Library (NAL). The NAL repository houses datasets generated by USDA researchers and other USDA-funded research. Unfortunately, the NAL repository is poorly equipped to handle data originating from additional sources. Nor does the NAL repository support the industry-wide annotation system needed to make data searchable and comparable.

A new repository is needed. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) offers an excellent model in GenBank. By helping researchers compare genes, this open-access bioinformatics tool deepens our understanding of health and accelerates development of medical treatments. GenBank connects to similar databases worldwide, and researchers contribute to and search the databases with associated software. The National Weather Service (NWS) similarly compiles a massive set of weather data that supports research and generates income from business services. Both GenBank and the National Weather Service’s databases have supported an explosion of resources, products, and services, from diagnostic medical tests, precision medicine, and genetic testing to weather apps for phones. These databases also feature budgets an order of magnitude larger than the budget for USDA’s NAL.

A right-sized investment in a broad agricultural research database at the NAL, including data generated with proprietary smart-farm technologies and other public-private collaborations, is the future of modern agriculture and agriculture research. Nationally available, high-quality, and curated agricultural data would seed a wealth of new services and companies in the sector. The database would also support the implementation of reliable, locally tailored, and situationally relevant soil-management practices and decision tools that provide precision health practices for soil.

Specifically, we recommend that USDA take the following steps to establish a broad agricultural data repository:

• Increasing the NAL’s budget by at least tenfold (moving closer to the level of funding enjoyed by the NLM) as its storage capacity expands.
• Working with the NLM and the NWS to learn from their decades of experience in building robust public data repositories.
• Constructing a repository that can house a broad range and large volumes of agricultural data, as well as the software needed to make the data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The database should accept data from research projects, farming operations, and Farm Bill conservation programs. Care must be taken to ensure that data from farms is anonymized and confidential.
• Hiring specialists to develop software for extracting, standardizing, formatting, and uploading data directly from research and farming equipment.
• Working with research- and farm-equipment designers to ensure their products can collect data in a format that matches USDA’s database requirements and is easy to use by farmers and farmworkers.
• Offering training and tools to familiarize researchers and students with the repository’s structure and assets and encourage researchers and students to link data to publications using Persistent Unique Identifiers (PUIDs).

These steps could be carried out using discretionary funding at USDA earmarked for investments in research and development capacity of farmers. These steps collectively align with the administration’s goal to “support a multi-agency initiative aimed at integrating science-based tools into conservation planning and verifying stable carbon sequestration, greenhouse-gas reduction, wildlife stewardship, and other environmental services at the farm level and on federal lands.”

Action 3. Invest in targeted research to reduce soil erosion and increase carbon sequestration.

General factors contributing to soil loss and mitigation principles are universal. Still, the most effective combination of specific practices for reducing soil erosion and increasing carbon sequestration depends on local soil type, slope, soil condition, land use, and weather. In many farming settings, regenerative practices can increase soil carbon and eliminate soil erosion in as little as one or two growing seasons. But matching best practices to a given location can be complex.

For example, intensive tillage is the most soil-erosive practice in agriculture. Reducing the use of this practice has been an important goal for soil-preservation efforts over the last four decades. Organic farms frequently use intensive tillage because organic certification prohibits the use of genetically engineered plants or herbicides—even though herbicide treatment provides excellent weed control and genetic engineering has made it possible to suppress weeds using herbicides without damage to the engineered crop plant. Reducing soil erosion on organic farms hence requires research into new methods of weed control.

The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) should jointly fund competitive grants for research into practices that reduce soil erosion, increase the nutrient density of food, and sequester carbon stably. Priority projects of these grants might include:

• Alternatives to intensive tillage for weed control, such as intercropping with competitive plant species, inhibiting weed growth with compost or other additives, planting cover crops that leave a residue that inhibits weeds but not crop plants, or application of weed-killing compounds that are acceptable under organic-certification requirements.
• Decision-support tools that help farmers choose strategies to reduce erosion in a financially viable manner.
• Methods to increase soil-carbon stability.
• Rapid, inexpensive tests to track soil carbon. Such tests would improve accountability and precision of farmer efforts to sequester carbon.
• Methods to integrate remote-sensing data with on-the-ground measurements of soil erosion

As with Action 2, these steps could be carried out using discretionary funding at USDA earmarked for investments in farmers’ research and development capacity. These steps collectively align with the administration’s goal to support a multi-agency initiative to integrate science-based tools into conservation planning and verify stable carbon sequestration, greenhouse-gas reduction, wildlife stewardship, and other environmental services at the farm level on federal lands.

Action 4. Develop financial and educational programs that help farmers transition to soil-protective practices.

Soil-protective practices have agronomic and economic benefits. Farmers using continuous no-till methods save several thousand dollars each year due to reduced fuel and labor investments. But economic returns on soil-saving practices can take several years to accrue. Growers are rightly concerned about their financial solvency in the short term should they implement such practices, as well as about yield reductions associated with no-till agriculture in some cases. USDA should (i) provide financial assistance to help producers transition to soil-saving practices and (ii) offer training to help producers realize maximal benefits of soil-protective practices at each phase of the transition.

For instance, USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) could offer loans based on cost-saving projections from reduced need for synthetic inputs and increased potential yield once the transition to soil-protective practices is complete. For example, loans could cover the cost of the first five years of projected lost income per acre. At the end of this term, USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) could offer discounted crop insurance rates because the now-healthier soil would engender a more resilient system less likely to experience catastrophic losses during floods and droughts. Farmers could use savings on insurance costs to repay loans and keep premiums constant once repayment begins.

Participation in the loan program could be contingent on farmers’ capacity to maintain soil-protective practices for at least ten years. During the initial five-year loan period, soil-health specialists affiliated with USDA could provide farmers with training on measuring progress, collecting data, and uploading that data to a centralized database. Outcomes across participating farms could be tracked and iteratively inform best practices during the transition period. After the initial five-year period, farmers could qualify for a five-year loan-forbearance period if they demonstrate continued participation in the program.

USDA could also offer direct payments to farmers participating in soil revitalization. Another Day One Project policy proposal recommends that the USDA offer incentive payments for climate-smart practices that produce ecosystem services if the producer cannot find a buyer through an ecosystem-services market. 

Specifically, we recommend that USDA take the following steps to develop financial and educational programs that help farmers transition to soil-protective practices:

• Create bridge loan products for farmers based on projected savings, potential yield increases, and ecosystem services provided by transitioning to soil-enhancing farm practices.
• Provide a seed investment for an ecosystem services market.
• Enact a “Good Farmer Discount” on crop insurance for producers already practicing soil conservation and regeneration.
• Hire or train soil health experts through USDA Extension offices to support farmers transitioning to soil-protective practices with ongoing education and training.

These steps could be supported by discretionary funding at the Department of Treasury earmarked for investments in American communities and small businesses and USDA funds dedicated to growing rural economies. These steps align with President Biden’s commitment to expanding the role of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which offer loans to start-ups and small businesses in rural communities and create new markets for reaching a net-zero carbon economy by 2050.

Action 5. Develop circular economy practices for young entrepreneurs supporting soil conservation.

Small businesses have a significant role in post-pandemic recovery by providing jobs and combating the climate crisis through innovation. The path to a net-zero carbon economy by 2050 must include circular economy principles that design waste out of economic cycles, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems. Additionally, closing education gaps and creating new paths to secure jobs for young people who did not complete high school has transformational effects on economic opportunities, health, and life expectancy.

USDA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Minority Business Development Administration (MBDA) should jointly develop a “Ground Up” program that (i) engages the agriculture industry in identifying circular-economy business opportunities and (ii) engages young people without a high-school education in starting small businesses that conserve, restore, and protect soil and other natural resources. Ground Up would fill gaps created by the uneven and insufficient USDA Extension workforce in underserved and under-resourced communities. Ground Up would also provide more extensive business and entrepreneurship training than is typically possible through Extension programs. By leveraging relationships with industry partners, program participants could be connected to byproducts—or “wasted resources”—they need to start a circular business and access to mentoring and markets required to sell their products and services profitably. For example, a Ground Up enterprise might incorporate grounds from commercial or residential coffee-making operations or municipal waste into commercial compost production. The Participants who complete the Ground Up program would be eligible for nointerest federal business loans, with repayment required once the business was profitable. The federal government could partner with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to share the cost of loans and build connections among young entrepreneurs, Extension professionals, and potential partner businesses.

Specifically, we recommend that USDA and the White House take the following steps to develop circular economy practices for young entrepreneurs supporting soil conservation:

• Establish the “Ground Up” program with $25 million per year for five years. This funding would cover the costs of training instructors, building partnerships with industry, and supporting administrative staff. This funding would also initially cover the costs of loans to eligible small businesses, though loan repayment would replenish these funds in the long term. A comprehensive program evaluation should be conducted at the end of the five years to evaluate program accomplishments and suggest improvements for the next program iteration.
• Direct its Extension offices to collaborate with the SBA to design and implement “Ground Up” training and propose a program founded on circular economy principles.
• In collaboration with the SBA, build and leverage relationships with industries and localities to supply start-up resources and secure advance-purchase commitments that curb investment risk.
• The White House can demonstrate support by hosting a public launch event for the “Ground Up” program. The launch event would highlight commitments from cities and industry partners to participate in and advance the program.

These steps could be implemented using discretionary funds within USDA, SBA, and MBDA earmarked to support innovative multi-agency business opportunities for rural and minority entrepreneurs. These steps align with the SBA’s commitments help small businesses combat climate change and invest in underserved entrepreneurs; the USDA’s mandate to grow rural economies and foster innovation in the agricultural sector, as well as USDA’s dedication to increasing and protecting biodiversity through good farm stewardship; and the MBDA’s economic-development grants aimed at addressing long-standing racial inequity for minority-owned firms.

Action 6. Support diversity in the agricultural workforce pipeline.

People of color, including Black, LatinX, and Indigenous people, are underrepresented in agriculture and agricultural sciences. To begin addressing this underrepresentation, the Biden administration should ensure diversity in its proposed Civilian Climate Corps (CCC). The CCC is envisioned as a modern-day equivalent of the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps work-relief program. The new iteration focuses on enhancing conservation and climate-smart practices across the country. The new CCC represents a terrific way for the Department of the Interior (DOI) to train a diverse workforce in climate- and soil-smart land-management practices with clear pathways to careers in technical assistance, agribusiness, and academic agricultural research, among others.

The administration can boost diversity in agricultural research by directing the USDA’s Office of Civil Rights and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to conduct an in-depth assessment of challenges faced by researchers of color in agricultural science and develop discipline-wide plans to address them. The administration can also increase research funding and funding for research infrastructure targeted at underrepresented populations. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to choose fields with reliable funding. The relative lack of funding for agricultural sciences, as evidenced by outdated educational infrastructure and shrinking training programs, puts agriculture departments at a stark disadvantage compared to the modern facilities (and reliable post-graduate incomes) of other scientific departments (e.g., biomedicine). The National Science Foundation (NSF) should support research and facilities at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to demonstrate and communicate programmatic stability and cutting-edge innovation in agriculture.

Specifically, we recommend that the Biden administration take the following steps to support diversity in the agricultural-workforce pipeline: 

• Direct the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to (i) prioritize and focus on diversity in recruitment in their strategy for the proposed Civilian Climate Corps, and (ii) ensure that the CCC includes professional development programs that connect participants to careers in agriculture. Boost direct support for graduate student fellowships from 1.5 to 5% of USDA’s total extramural research budget. Graduate fellowships put research dollars in the hands of students, and fellowships can be targeted at underrepresented populations. Increasing direct support would provide students with reliable funding while sending a powerful message to those students that they belong in the agricultural sciences and are needed.
• Integrate fellowship programs with USDA’s 1890 National Scholars Program so that students at the 1890s HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) have a clear path toward further academic study in agricultural science.
• Increase award size for Higher Education Challenge Grants and the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program.
• Require every NIFA grant proposal to include a diversity statement and record of training diverse scientists; mandate consideration of these materials in funding decisions. Proposals for conference grants should additionally address plans for ensuring accessibility and inclusion at the conference.

These steps could be supported by funding allocated at USDA, NSF, and DOI to increase racial equity, specifically the participation of historically underrepresented people in the Civilian Climate Corps and farming, science, and engineering more broadly.

Action 7. Fund existing and proposed advanced research projects agencies (ARPAs) to invest in soil-saving research.

USDA’s research agencies tend to fund low-risk research that delivers incremental changes in agricultural practices. This essential research provides many strategies for stemming soil loss, but remarkably few farms employ these strategies. The nation needs paradigm-shifting advances that farmers will use. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model can help realize such advances by investing deeply in bold ideas outside of mainstream thinking. Several existing and proposed ARPA programs are well-positioned to invest in soil-saving research.

ARPA-Energy (ARPA-E) in the Department of Energy (DOE) is already funding high-impact agricultural research that protects soil. ARPA-E has invested in one soil-centered project, ROOTS, to develop “root-focused” plant cultivars that could dramatically reduce atmospheric carbon. The agency is also gearing up for a new project on carbon farming. These projects match ARPA-E’s energy-focused mission, which includes reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, ARPA-E does not have the mandate to invest in specific agricultural projects that build and protect soil. Two additional ARPA-style entities have been proposed that could do so instead: ARPA-I (infrastructure), included as part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and AgARDA, a USDA-based ARPA-style agency authorized by the 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act (Farm Bill). If funded, ARPA-I, AgARDA, or both could invest in groundbreaking research to drive soil protection.

To leverage the ARPA model for transformative advances in soil-saving research, we recommend that the Biden administration:

• Expand the potential for soil-saving projects at funded ARPA agencies (e.g., ARPA-E) that align with the missions of their parent departments.
• Prioritize a strategic plan for AgARDA that includes ARPA-style independence in its management, an allocation plan for its authorized annual $50 million budget, and structures to empower funding risky but potentially catalytic agricultural projects.
• Promote the role of soil at proposed ARPA agencies (e.g., ARPA-I).

These steps could be supported by discretionary funds allocated to the DOE and USDA. Cumulatively, the President’s most recent budget request directs $1.1 billion to DOE to support breakthroughs in climate and clean-energy research and solutions. Specifically, mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis involves more than inventing cleaner energy; new technologies that help farmers protect soil and fix carbon into the land will also be essential for correcting extreme imbalances in the global carbon budget.

Action 8. Develop criteria and funding for “Earth Cities.”

People feel helpless and fatigued about climate change at the local level partly because they lack the agency to make positive steps to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The White House should deepen its relationships with mayors and nonprofit coalition groups of cities—such as C40, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities— to engage urban communities in combating hazards related to climate change.

Like the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Tree Cities” program that encourages communities to steward their tree resources, a national “Earth Cities” program would recognize cities leading the way on urban soil stewardship and management. Criteria for receiving the “Earth City” designation could include implementation of a centralized municipal composting program, large-scale replanting of public parks and rights-ofway with native grasses and perennials that have soil-health benefits, creative management of excavated soil and rock generated by urban construction, becoming a signatory to the 4p1000 initiative, and observance of World Soil Day on December 5. Taking steps to become an “Earth City” and prioritizing soil management at the municipal level offers communities a way to make a positive difference and experience benefits locally while addressing global climate challenges.

Recent research demonstrates that temperatures can vary as much as 20 degrees across different neighborhoods within the same city. Urban heat islands often overlap with communities of color and low-income households in areas with few trees and large amounts of heat-trapping pavement. In these historically redlined communities, rates of heat-related illness and deaths are also higher than wealthier, whiter, and cooler parts of town. Additionally, meeting green building codes and keeping federally supported housing projects affordable has become increasingly difficult in urban centers. Tending to soil health by reusing excavated soil, planting trees and tall grasses on site, and creating more green spaces can inexpensively mitigate the urban heat-island effect while increasing access to nature in historically under-resourced communities. A partnership between soil experts at USDA, pollution and environmental-hazard experts at EPA, and affordable housing programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would support cities with funding and implementation and further strengthen program viability by tying federal support to local soil stewardship practices.

Specifically, we recommend that the Biden administration take the following steps to recognize and support cities striving to preserve soil and enhance soil-carbon sequestration:

• Work with USDA, HUD, and EPA to convene a coalition of mayors, soil experts, private industry, developers, nonprofit organizations, and local soil stewards to design the “Earth Cities” program, including establishing qualifying criteria.
• Create an earmarked fund at HUD that supports developers with low-income housing tax credits for implementing and maintaining soil stewardship practices in alignment with the “Earth City” designation.
• Provide seed funding to municipal agencies via state Environmental Protection Agencies to develop soil conservation and restoration programs at the local level.

These steps could be supported through earmarked funds at EPA for the Accelerating Environmental and Economic Justice Initiative, HUD funds to modernize and rehabilitate public housing, infrastructure, and facilities in historically underfunded and marginalized communities; and USDA funds that encourage conservation and increased biodiversity on private land.

Action 9. Plant deep-rooted perennials on median strips to foster carbon-rich soils for multi-benefit surface transportation.

As a part of President Biden’s plan to invest in multi-benefit transportation infrastructures, a policy to populate median strips with deep-rooted prairie perennials presents a means to restore soil carbon and simultaneously sustain essential pollinators in agricultural and other ecosystems. Highway medians are supposed to be at least 50 feet wide for safety, creating a minimum of 6 acres of median per mile of highway. The 47,000 miles of U.S. Interstate and 160,000 miles of other highways amount to nearly 300,000 and 1 million acres, respectively, of median strips in the United States. Each acre could sequester 1.7 tons of carbon per year until the soil’s carrying capacity is reached.

Deep carbon stores of soil in the Midwest resulted from centuries of growth of perennial plants that store most of their carbon in their roots. The crops that replaced the prairies shunt most of their carbon to the harvested aboveground tissues, leaving little in the soil. Corn roots, for example, represent only 1% of the plant biomass by the end of the growing season, whereas the roots of perennials—which can grow to as deep as 15 feet underground—can account for as much as 70% of the plant’s biomass. Between 2009 and 2015, 53 million acres of U.S. land was converted from native vegetation to cropland, leading to a loss of 2% of the soil carbon stored in that land per year. This loss translates to 3.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere—equivalent to almost one-half of annual U.S. fossil-fuel emissions.

One way to mitigate soil loss is by planting highway median strips with the native, deep-rooted perennials that simultaneously nourish pollinators, enrich soil, and sequester copious amounts of carbon. The Department of Transportation (DOT) could coordinate a large-scale highway-replanting initiative through the effort proposed in the bipartisan infrastructure bill to rebuild the interstate system. In parallel, federal and local “Adopt-a-Highway” programs could enlist citizens, businesses, and municipalities in seeding median strips with native plants.

Specifically, we recommend that:

• President Biden issues an Executive Order mandating that DOT invest 0.5% of federal highway construction and repair budgets in planting native plants in median strips. The Departments of Transportation and Agriculture could design the program jointly to consider both soil health and highway safety.
• The USDA develop a federal program to contract with farmers to produce the seed supply necessary for large-scale planting of medians.
• The administration institutes a federal policy to plant carbon-sequestering perennials alongside new and upgraded road and rail lines.

The administration could pursue these steps using discretionary funds allocated to the Department of Transportation to support competitive-grant programs for infrastructure. The administration could also leverage part of the $110 billion allocated in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act towards infrastructure upgrades, including upgrades focused on climate-change mitigation, resilience, and equity.

Climate change is an enormous environmental, social, and economic threat to the United States. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels and other industrial processes are a major driver of this threat. Even if the world stopped emitting CO2 today, the huge quantities of CO2 generated by human activity to date would continue to sit in the atmosphere and cause dangerous climate effects for at least another 1,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that keeping average global warming below 1.5°C is not possible without the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR).2 While funding and legislative support for CDR has greatly increased in recent years, the United States does not yet have a coordinated plan for implementing CDR technologies. The Department of Energy’s CDR task force should recommend a governance strategy for CDR implementation to responsibly, equitably, and effectively combat climate change by achieving net-negative CO2 emissions.

Challenge and Opportunity 

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is a dangerous global threat. Climate change, driven in large part by human-generated CO2 emissions, is already causing severe flooding, drought, melting ice sheets, and extreme heat. These phenomena are in turn compromising human health, food and water security, and economic growth.

Figure 1. Data collected from observation stations show how noticeably atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen over the past several decades. (Data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; figure by Klaus S. Lackner.)

Morton, E.V. (2020). Reframing the Climate Change Problem: Evaluating the Political, Technological, and Ethical Management of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the United States. Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University.

CO2 concentrations are higher today than they have been at any point in the last 3 million years. The contribution of human activity is causing CO2 emissions to rise at an unprecedented rate — approximately 2% per year for the past several decades (Figure 1) — a rate that far outpaces the rate at which the natural world can adapt and adjust. A monumental global effort is needed to reduce CO2 emissions from human activity. But even this is not enough. Because CO2 can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years, CO2 already emitted will continue to have climate impacts for at least the next 1,000 years. Keeping the impacts of climate change to tolerable levels requires not only a suite of actions to reduce future CO2 emissions, but also implementation of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies to mitigate the damage we have already done.

The IPCC defines CDR as “anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.” While becoming more energy efficient can reduce emissions and using renewable energy causes zero emissions, only CDR can achieve the “net negative” emissions needed to help restore climate stability.

Five companies around the world — two of which are based in the United States — have already begun commercializing a particular CDR technology called direct air capture. Climeworks is the most advanced company, and can already remove 900 tons of atmospheric CO2 per year at its plant in Switzerland. Though these companies have demonstrated that CDR technologies like direct air capture work, costs need to come down and capacity needs to expand for CDR to remove meaningful levels of past emissions from the atmosphere.

Thankfully, the Energy Act of 2020, a subsection of the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, was passed into law in December 2020. This act creates a carbon removal research, development, and demonstration program within the Department of Energy. It also establishes a prize competition for pre-commercial and commercial applications of direct air capture technologies, provides grants for direct air capture and storage test centers, and creates a CDR task force.

The CDR task force will be led by the Secretary of Energy and include the heads of any other relevant federal agencies chosen by the Secretary. The task force is mandated to write a report that includes an estimate of how much excess CO2 needs to be removed from the atmosphere by 2050 to achieve net zero emissions, an inventory and evaluation of CDR approaches, and recommendations for policy tools that the U.S. government can use to meet the removal estimation and advance CDR deployment. This report will be used to advise the Secretary of Energy on next steps for CDR development and will be submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House of Representatives Committees on Energy and Commerce and Science, Space, and Technology.

The Biden administration has clearly shown its commitment to combating climate change by rejoining the Paris Agreement and signing several Executive Orders that take a whole-of-government approach to the climate crisis. The Energy Act complements these actions by advancing development and demonstration of CDR. However, the Energy Act does not address CDR governance, i.e., the policy tools necessary to efficiently and ethically steward CDR implementation. A proactive governance strategy is needed to ensure that CDR is used to repair past damage and support communities that have been disproportionately harmed by climate change — not as an excuse for the fossil-fuel industry and other major contributors to the climate crisis to continue dumping harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The CDR task force should therefore leverage the crucial opportunity it has been given to shape future use of CDR by incorporating governance recommendations into its report.

Plan of Action

The Department of Energy’s CDR task force should consider recommending the following options in its final report. Taken together, these recommendations form the basis of a governance framework to ensure that CDR technologies are implemented in a way that most responsibly, equitably, and effectively addresses climate change.

Establish net-zero and net-negative carbon removal targets.

The Energy Act commendably directs the CDR task force to estimate the amount of CO2 that the United States must remove to become net zero by 2050. But the task force should not stop there. The task force should also estimate the amount of CO2 that the United States must remove to limit average global warming to 1.5°C (a target that will require net negative emissions) and estimate what year this goal could feasibly be achieved. Much like the National Ambient Air Quality Standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, there should be a specific amount of CO2 that the United States should work toward removing to enhance environmental quality. This target could be based on how much CO2 the United States has put into the atmosphere to date and how much of that amount the United States should be responsible for removing. Both net-zero and net-negative removal targets should be preserved through legislation to continue progress beyond the Biden administration.

Design a public carbon removal service.

If carbon removal targets become law, the federal government will need to develop an organized way of removing and storing CO2 in order to reach those targets. Therefore, the CDR task force should also consider what it would take to develop a public carbon removal service. Just as waste disposal and sewage infrastructure are public services paid for by those that generate waste, industries would pay for the service of having their past and current CO2 emissions removed and stored securely. Revenue generated from a public carbon removal service could be reinvested into CDR technology, carbon storage facilities, maintenance of CDR infrastructure, environmental justice initiatives, and job creation. As the Biden administration ramps up its American Jobs Plan to modernize the country’s infrastructure, it should consider including carbon removal infrastructure. A public carbon removal service could materially contribute to the goals of expanding clean energy infrastructure and creating jobs in the green economy that the American Jobs Plan aims to achieve. 

Planning the design and implementation of a public carbon removal service should be conducted in parallel with CDR technology development. Knowing what CDR technologies will be used may change how prize competitions and grant programs funded by the Energy Act are evaluated and how the CDR task force will prioritize its policy recommendations. The CDR task force should assess the CDR technology landscape and determine which technologies — including mechanical, agricultural, and ocean-based processes — are best suited for inclusion in a public carbon removal service. The assessment should be based on factors such as affordability, availability, and storage permanence. The assessment could also consider results from the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program and the prize competitions mandated by the Energy Act when making its determination. The task force should also recommend concrete steps towards getting a public carbon removal service up and running. Steps could include, for instance, establishing public-private partnerships with prize competition winners and other commercialized CDR companies.

Create a national carbon accounting standard.

The Energy Act directs the RD&D program to collaborate with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an accounting framework to certify how much carbon different techniques can remove and how long that carbon can be stored. This may involve investigating the storage permanence of various carbon storage and utilization options. This may also involve creating a database of storage lifetimes for CDR products and processes and identification of CDR techniques best suited for attaining carbon removal targets. The task force could recommend to the Secretary of Energy that the framework becomes a standard. A national carbon accounting standard will be integral for achieving carbon removal targets and verifying removal through public service described above.

Ensure equity in CDR.

While much of the technical and economic aspects of carbon removal have been (or are being) investigated, questions related to equity remain largely unaddressed. The CDR task force should investigate and recommend policies and actions to ensure that carbon removal does not impose or exacerbate societal inequities, especially for vulnerable communities of color and low-income communities. Recommendations that the task force could explore include:

• Establishing a tax credit for investing in CDR on private land. This credit would be similar to existing credits for installing solar and selling electricity back to the grid. Some or all of proceeds from the credit should go to help communities previously harmed by environmental injustice (i.e., “environmental justice communities”).
• Launching a CDR technology deployment program that gives environmental justice communities a tax credit or other financial benefit for allowing a CDR technology to be deployed in their communities. This “hosting” compensation would be earmarked for local environmental remediation.
• Incentivizing design of CDR technologies that deliver co-benefits. For instance, planting trees not only helps remove carbon from the atmosphere but also creates shade, provides habitat, and helps mitigate urban heat-island effects. Industrial direct air capture plants can be surrounded by greenspace and art to create public parks.
• Interviewing environmental justice communities to understand their needs and how those needs could be met through strategic implementation of CDR.

Include CDR in international climate discussions.

Because CDR is a necessary part of any realistic strategy to keep average global warming to tolerable levels, CDR is a necessary part of future international discussions on climate change. The United States can take the lead by including CDR in its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. The U.S. NDC most recently submitted in April 2021 does discuss increasing carbon sequestration through agriculture and oceans but could be even more aggressive by including a broader suite of CDR technologies (e.g., engineered direct air capture) and prioritizing pursuit of carbon-negative solutions. The CDR task force could recommend that the Department of Energy work with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and the Department of State Office of Global Change on (1) enhancing the NDC through CDR, and (2) developing climate-negotiation strategies intended to increase the use of CDR globally.

Conclusion

Global climate change has worsened to the point where simply reducing emissions is not enough. Even if all global emissions were to cease today, the climate impacts of the carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere would continue to be felt for centuries to come. The only solution to this problem is to achieve net-negative emissions by dramatically accelerating development and deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). As one of the world’s biggest emitters, the United States has a responsibility to do all it can to tackle the climate crisis. And as one of the world’s technological and geopolitical leaders, the United States is well positioned to rise to the occasion, investing in CDR governance alongside the technical and economic aspects of CDR. The CDR task force can lead in this endeavor by advising the Secretary of Energy on an overall governance strategy and specific policy recommendations to ensure that CDR is used in an aggressive, responsible, and equitable manner.

Introduction

For those who can afford to fill their fridge by clicking a button on their smartphone or walking around to the organic grocery around the corner, it is easy to forget how complex and fragile our food systems can be. However, for millions of Americans who suffer from poor health because of food insecurity, or farmers and ranchers whose yields are decreasing along with the nutrient density of their product, that fragility is felt every day. Sustainable food systems engender intricate connections and feedback loops among climate change, public health, food security, national security, and social equity. When one of these factors is overstressed, disaster can result.

COVID-19 has underscored the vulnerability of our food systems. The pandemic caused restaurants to close overnight, strained supply chains, and led to food rotting on land, in warehouses, and on shelves. Low-income and food-insecure families waited in lines that stretched for miles while producers and distributors struggled to figure out how to get supplies to those who needed them. Concurrently, generations of racial inequity and the coordinated disenfranchisement of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) has crystalized as an issue that needs to be addressed at every level in our country, especially within our food and agricultural systems.

Addressing these issues—now and for the future—requires a coordinated response across sectors. Food security is deeply intertwined with public health and social equity. Un- and under- employment, the racial wealth gap, and increased financial hardships for certain communities result in increased malnutrition, obesity, metabolic diseases, and chronic illness, as well as particular susceptibility to severe impacts from COVID-19 infections during the present pandemic. The climate crisis compounds these issues. Farming practices that degrade soil health, reduce agriculture capacity, and compromise the well-being of small farms and rural communities prevent us as a nation from becoming healthier and more secure. As we look at opportunities to “build back better,” we must embrace paradigmatic shifts—fundamental restructuring of our systems that will support equitable and inclusive futures. Compounding crises require changes in not only what we do, but how we think about what we do.

A fundamental problem is that progress in modern agriculture has been implicitly defined as progress in agricultural technology (AgTech) and biotechnology. Little emphasis is placed on examining whole-systems dependencies and on how connections among soil health, gut bacteria, and antibiotic use in livestock impact human health, economic prosperity, and climate change. With such a narrow view of “innovation,” current practices will solve a handful of isolated problems but create many more.

Fortunately, alternatives are ripe for adoption. Regenerative farming, for instance, is a proven way to combat future warming while increasing the adaptive capacity of our lands, providing equitable access to food, and creating viable rural economies. Regenerative farming can also restore soil health, which in turn improves food quality while enhancing carbon sequestration and providing natural water treatment.

Transitioning away from dominant but harmful practices is not easy. The shift will require an inclusive innovation ecosystem, investors with long time horizons, new infrastructure, tailored education, economic incentives, and community safety nets. This document explores how the agricultural sector can support, and be supported by, policies that advance science, technology, and innovation while revitalizing living systems and equitable futures. We recognize that agricultural policy often overlooks interventions that are appropriately suited to advance these concepts with Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) communities and on tribal lands. To avoid this mistake, the concepts presented herein start from the ground up. We focus on the benefits of improving soil health and food security through regenerative agricultural activities, and provide examples of policies that could promote such activities in a variety of ways. Letting practice drive policy— instead of having policy dictate practice—will result in more sustainable, inclusive outcomes for all communities.

While agricultural policy can and should be shaped at the local, regional, state, and national level, this document places special emphasis on the role of the federal government. Building better food systems will require multiple government agencies, especially federal agencies, to collaboratively advance more equitable policies and practices. Most national agricultural programs are housed within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). But the interconnectedness of how we produce food and fiber (and the ways in which those practices impact our environment and nourish people) demands priority investment not only from USDA, but also from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Health and Human Services—to name just a few. This document—based on a review of existing policy recommendations and current practice, development and refinement of new ideas, and identification of underleveraged roles and programs within the government— suggests what such investments might look like in practice.

Summary

Putting a price on carbon is fundamental to achieving U.S. climate goals for 2050. Many options for carbon price-setting exist, and in this policy brief we propose a tax-and-dividend approach that mitigates the challenging impacts that carbon policies have on poor and suburban/rural communities, particularly those in Middle America. Such a plan will be a net gain for low-income households, in contrast to other proposed climate change policies which will adversely affect the poor. Furthermore, it has been shown that even a modest carbon tax can have large benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness.

For that reason, we propose the following:

• Introduce a carbon tax-and-dividend plan as part of any federal climate policy.
• Use revenue to offset impacts on low-income households, taking into account enormousregional disparities.
• If political dynamics favor regulatory standards, consider coupling such standards with amodest carbon tax whose revenue can be used to offset their regressive effects.

Summary

The United States needs to radically enhance its efforts to build community disaster resilience. The frequency and cost of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have increased significantly over the past decade. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s estimates, the direct costs of disasters between 2018 and 2019 amounted to over $136 billion. And 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria resulted in over $265 billion in damage and displaced many communities. Moreover, accelerated urbanization and climate change continue to exacerbate communities’ vulnerability to climate disasters, rendering the current disaster mitigation, recovery, and emergency response policies untenable in the near future.

Resilience has served as an organizing principle for policymakers, first responders, and businesses in marshalling resources to reduce community vulnerability, stimulate recovery, and ensure reliable access to critical services (e.g., energy, water, shelter, food, health, ecosystems services and mobility) in the aftermath of climate disasters. However, the current set of reactive disaster recovery efforts and resilience policies have proven to be inefficient and costly, contributing to the widening of the `climate gap’ and entrenching vulnerability traps, particularly among marginalized and disadvantaged communities.

The Biden-Harris Administration should invest in information technology, data transparency and convergence research to build data-enabled predictive capabilities that anticipate shifts in communities’ demand for critical services under compound climate disasters, and inform effective resource allocation to equitably mitigate the impacts of climate change. These investments will not only enhance stewardship of taxpayer dollars, create jobs and bolster the economy, but will also shrink the rapidly widening climate gap and save lives.

Summary

Every year, Americans lose billions of dollars to natural hazards. Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, heat waves, and droughts affect millions of Americans and are particularly devastating for low-income communities and communities of color. The number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’—those that cause over a billion dollars in damage—is rising as a result of climate change, urbanization, high risk developments, communities in vulnerable areas, aging infrastructure, and federal policy that rewards risk-prone behavior rather than incentivizing risk reduction. An overhaul of U.S. federal disaster policy will reverse the trend and eliminate billion-dollar disasters. This goal requires action at all levels of government, coordination across agencies, and leadership from the highest levels.

The Biden-Harris Administration should implement a multi-phase plan beginning with an executive order instructing federal agencies to define federal roles in disaster response, coordinate agency efforts, and integrate social justice and climate change into decision-making. Agency-level mandates will develop and implement best practices, incentivize state and local measures, and create an evidentiary basis for funding allocations. Finally, legislative reform of disaster laws will enable flexible responses to the continuing effects of climate change. A coordinated overhaul of federal laws and policies will inspire change at state and local levels, leading to a U.S. disaster policy that is climate-ready, addresses social inequities, reduces taxpayer liability and disaster damage, and saves lives.

Challenge and Opportunity

Disaster effects continue to worsen. Climate change is exacerbating hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and wildfires. Development and population growth in at-risk areas have placed more people, infrastructure, and economic activity in harm’s way. Serious disasters are more frequent and more costly (Figure 1). In 2019 alone, the U.S. experienced fourteen different billion-dollar disasters. In a five-month period that year, flooding affected eleven states: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Federal aid is designed to be a last resort in disasters: the backstop when local and state resources have been overwhelmed. Current disaster policy and practice, however, results in disincentives for local governments to engage in proactive risk reduction. The more damage a county experiences, for example, the more money the county receives from the Federal Government, providing little incentive to adopt better building codes or limit development in risk-prone areas. The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that updating and refining building codes alone could save $4 for every $1 spent—as well as save 600 lives, avoid 4,000 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and create 87,000 new jobs (NIBS 2019). Despite this alternative approach, U.S. disaster policy emphasizes recovery rather than prevention. Only a fraction of disaster funding—just 15%—is spent on reducing future losses.

Relief decisions use wealth and assets as measures of need, rather than people. The result is that disaster funding increases wealth inequality. There is also little evidence that the billions in disaster recovery paid by U.S. taxpayers each year has increased community resilience. According to the Government Accountability Office, nearly 45,000 new homes experienced repeat flood losses over the last decade, while less than half that number had their flood risk reduced through elevation, acquisition, or floodproofing.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a key organizer for federal response in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. In the long tail of recovery, though, other agencies— including the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Transit Authority (FTA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Small Business Administration (SBA)— become involved. These agencies have significant and increasing spending authority and autonomy, but the risk reduction projects they prioritize and the reasons for their selection are often unclear or unavailable to researchers or the public. Projects are also not required to complement or support one another; each agency has its own mission, and there is little overarching coordination. At times, their actions may even work at cross-purposes.

Overhauling U.S. disaster policy will require a major effort across multiple levels and branches of government. This effort will not only limit but also potentially reverse the trend of increasing disaster costs. Disaster policy can create incentives for risk-smart development, promote climateproof investments in infrastructure, and protect society’s most vulnerable populations.

Plan of Action

A complete overhaul of U.S. disaster policy will require many actions across government branches. The following roadmap is a starting point: an initial set of steps to establish leadership, coordination, and a structure within which numerous actors can engage in a collaborative effort to build a disaster-resilient nation.

The plan is guided by the following principles:

• Equity must be at the center; disaster policy must focus on enabling communities.
• High-level leadership is required to coordinate multiple mutually supporting actions throughout the Federal Government.
• Aligning state and local government incentives will encourage these institutions to assume responsibility for building resilient communities.
• Transparent, evidence-based decision-making and implementation are most effective.

Executive Branch

An executive order from the President or memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Policy should direct agencies to address climate change and social equity in all federal actions. The order should provide a new mandate for inter-agency task forces such as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) to take, at minimum, the following actions:

• Define leadership and roles for each federal agency and establish coordination mechanisms to align actions during pre-disaster risk mitigation and long-term recovery.
• Provide a roadmap for federal agencies to create incentives for local governments to take risk reduction measures.
• Direct all agencies to review disaster expenditures and decision-making processes, make the results public, and review consistency among agencies.
• Pursue place-based pilot programs that are participatory and community-based to establish participatory processes and evaluation methods.
• Develop a long-term plan for disaster recovery that (1) addresses inequities in access to housing, infrastructure, and social services, (2) promotes quality of life, (3) and ensures a just transition process for communities as they build resilience.

Legislative Branch

Following the executive action, Congress should legislate reform both the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIP) and the Stafford Act of 1988. Congress should adopt the guidelines made by inter-agency task forces and recommendations made by the hazard science community. Congress must deliberate on:

• Increased spending flexibility to support community resilience and functioning.
• Raising the disaster threshold given the increasing frequency and severity of events and the need to incentivize local and state governments to prepare for and limit the damage caused by common hazards.
• Adjusting the federal cost-share to incentivize action without burdening communities.
• Creating incentives that protect vulnerable populations.

University and Government Research

New science is needed to create a more robust foundation of evidentiary knowledge. Through National Science Foundation calls and inter-agency task force member agencies commissioning National Academies Studies, funding should be allocated toward:

• Defining and developing a public insurance program that covers a wide range of disasters.
• Evaluating the adequacy of the disaster directive for achieving national goals.
• Undertaking research to inform thresholds for federal action at state and local levels

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed systematic vulnerabilities in the way that wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases are managed at national and international scales. The next administration should take three key steps to address these vulnerabilities in the United States. First, the White House should create a “Task Force on the Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases”. This Task Force would convene agencies with oversight over animal imports, identify necessary policy actions, determine priority research areas, and coordinate a national response strategy. Second, the next president should work with Congress to pass a bill strengthening live-animal import regulations. Third, U.S. agencies should coordinate with international organizations to address global movement of infectious diseases of animals. Together, these actions would reduce the risk of emerging infectious diseases entering the United States, offer greater protection to citizens from zoonotic diseases, and protect American biodiversity from losses due to wildlife diseases.

Challenge and Opportunity

More than 60% of emerging infectious diseases in humans first originate in animals. More than 70% of these come from wild animals. HIV, for instance, jumped to human hosts from primates in Africa. MERS spread to humans from camels in the Middle East. Of present salience, experts believe that the virus that causes COVID-19 originated from wild animals in China (probably bats).

The risk of animal-to-human “spillover”—and the global spread of zoonotic diseases—increases when wildlife are traded and imported around the world (e.g., for food, traditional medicines, display, pets, etc.). The global spread of COVID-19 has drawn attention to problems such as lack of disease surveillance in wild animal populations and lack of disease testing in many live animals at international borders. International wildlife-trade laws do not account for public-health risks of wildlife trade. These laws also do not require collection of data on zoonotic diseases (i.e., diseases caused by germs that spread between animals and people): data that could help prevent the next pandemic. These problems are exacerbated by accelerating rates of habitat conversion and biodiversity loss coupled with increased volume and speed of international commerce.

The United States is especially susceptible to emerging zoonotic diseases because it is the world’s largest importer6 of legally traded wild animals, yet lacks domestic regulations requiring most imported live animals to be tested for diseases, pathogens, or parasites. Gaps in U.S. statutory and regulatory frameworks governing live-animal imports increase disease risks for humans while also threatening our country’s biodiversity and natural resources. In the United States, four agencies oversee some aspect of live-animal imports—but this oversight is far from comprehensive. The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for assessing the risk of diseases in agricultural imports, but not wildlife species. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) oversees imports of only primates and some species of rodents, bats, or birds known to spread zoonotic diseases. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for regulating imports of all wildlife (and imposes stricter standards on species previously identified as injurious), but its mandate does not cover infectious diseases or parasites. The upshot is that imports of most wildlife species to the United States are not assessed for disease risk by any agency. Most disease agents that infect wildlife (except for a small number of known zoonotic diseases) are not monitored by any agency either.

Plan of Action 

The next administration should take three key steps to address systematic vulnerabilities in the way that wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases are managed in the United States and around the world. 

Create a White House Task Force on the Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

This Task Force would convene agencies with oversight over animal imports (including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and CDC) and those supporting research (NSF, NIH) or international assistance (U.S. Department of State, USAID) to determine global research priorities on wildlife disease, and facilitate international cooperation on mechanisms to reduce demand as well as disease risk in the live animal trade. The task-force would use the One Health concept that links human health with animal health and environmental health, and that applies a comprehensive approach to understanding the drivers of disease emergence, the spread of disease, and the impacts on human health.

Work with Congress to pass a bill strengthening live-animal import regulations.

This bill would build on past legislation (e.g., H.R. 6362/S. 3210;11 H.R. 3771/S. 1903;12 and S. 375913) related to wildlife disease. The bill should:

• Reduce risk of zoonotic disease introduction to the United States by increasing surveillance of live-animal imports at U.S. borders. Specifically, Congress should give APHIS the authority to use pre-import screening, such as a process that assesses disease risk by species and country and determines allowable imports on the basis of that assessment. Congress should also expand the mission of APHIS to address not only disease issues that affect agricultural animals but also disease issues associated with zoonotic and wildlife diseases.
• Amend the Lacey Act to strengthen the FWS’s ability to identify, designate, and stop injurious species (including dangerous pathogens) from entering the United States, and from moving via interstate commerce if and when they do enter. Specifically, the Lacey Act should be amended to grant the FWS authority over emergency listing (i.e. one that is accelerated and bypasses the notice and public comment process); authority to list human and wildlife pathogens as injurious species; and authority to regulate interstate commerce in listed injurious species.
• Expand efforts to control illegal wildlife trade. President Obama’s July 2013 Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking resulted in the development of a holistic national strategy for tackling the entire trade chain of wildlife trafficking. The next administration should strive to implement elements of this strategy that have not yet been implemented, and to build on elements that have. This could include increasing the FWS’s enforcement capacity, strengthening measures to prevent and deter wildlife trafficking, increasing the severity of penalties for wildlife crime, and taking steps to reduce demand (media campaigns, behavior change) for imported wildlife.

Coordinate internationally to address diverse aspects of wildlife movement and emerging infectious diseases.

The next administration should direct USDA (primarily APHIS) and the FWS to lead the following efforts:

• Amend the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) treaty and accompanying resolutions to (i) consider disease risk as a factor in regulating wildlife imports and exports, and (ii) broaden the scope of CITES in tackling domestic markets.
• Strengthen efforts by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to develop a systematic approach for early detection of (and rapid responses to) emerging infectious diseases of human, wildlife, and domesticated animals.
• Expand OIE’s ambit from simply assessing disease risk in livestock trade to one in which OIE works with CITES and country-based labs to expand disease surveillance in all live-animal trade, including by conducting tests. OIE should establish a publicly accessible, centralized, and curated system for monitoring the global incidence and spread of wildlife pathogens in order to facilitate early detection of disease emergence and to document disease spread. Such a system could be modeled on GISAID or EpiFlu.

Conclusion 

Regulatory gaps put Americans at risk of exposure to emerging infectious disease from unregulated and under-regulated imports of wildlife. The next administration should address these gaps by creating a White House task force, strengthening live-animal import regulations, and coordinating with international institutions to reduce the global movement of emerging infectious diseases. The result would be a nation that is healthier and safer—for humans and animals alike.

The United States lacks the basic information and digital infrastructure required to effectively respond to the emerging climate crisis. While the science and technology needed for sensible climate policy exists, efforts to leverage these technical resources are fragmented and undirected. Actors in the most important sectors of the U.S. economy are making long-term investment decisions based on inaccurate or outdated data as a result. In the past 10 years, for example, homes worth over $11.2 billion have been built in areas that are at risk from sea-level rise. Insurance companies have paid over $25 billion in claims resulting from the 2017 wildfires in California. Better information on environmental impacts of climate change will make it possible to mitigate losses from wildfires, droughts, floods, and extreme weather events. Therefore, the next Administration should invest in Earth observation to directly measure environmental change and greenhouse gas emissions.

The next Administration should also invest in modern data and information technology infrastructure to effectively and efficiently respond to climate change. Such digital infrastructure will make it easier to integrate climate science into decision making. These investments will not only strengthen the domestic economy, but will also reposition the United States as a global leader on one of the most pressing “moonshots” of our time—basic measurements of humanity’s impact on our home planet.

Challenge and Opportunity

By 2050, the cost of anthropogenic climate change to the United States is projected to be equivalent to the cost of a mid-scale pandemic, year-over-year. Yet American homeowners, small businesses, and even large enterprises are making investments with expected dividends in 10- 30 years as if the impacts of climate change are unknowable — they aren’t. The technology exists to measure the causes and effects of climate change at a resolution and frequency commensurate with economic decision-making. The challenge is to effectively organize disparate federal efforts to collect and distribute information about how our home planet is changing, so that Americans and American companies can make smart, forward-thinking choices.

Environmental information, especially about climate change, is a public good and should be provisioned by the public sector. In addition, there are sweeping economies of scale associated with Earth observation — with high upfront costs of data collection and data infrastructure, but low marginal costs to extend coverage from one state to the next. As such, the Federal Government is a natural home to lead and coordinate Earth observation.

Bolstering the Federal Government’s Earth observation will reposition the United States as a global leader on the most pressing “moonshots” of our time. Establishing capacity to collect basic information about the vital signs of our planet will be a clear diplomatic, scientific, and economic win for a new Administration. This document outlines feasible, measured, and near-term activities in support of that goal.

Plan of Action

The next Administration should take immediate and bold actions to elevate Earth observation at the federal level. Specifically, the next Administration should 

Deputize the next NASA Administrator to lead Earth observation for the Federal Government, with decisive support for budget-neutral reallocation of resources toward Earth science. NASA has the mandate, public trust, technical resources, and science budget to take a leading role in monitoring climate change. Currently, only 7% of NASA’s annual budget is dedicated to studying our home planet. The urgency of climate change requires that number to be much higher. The percentage of NASA’s annual budget allocated to Earth science should be doubled within the first year of the next Administration. Moreover, structures to support climate science within the Federal Government are insufficient. NASA leadership will organize, elevate, and operationalize existing efforts. For example, reallocation and refocusing of resources could be used within the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to develop an ecosystem of firms capable of (i) collecting and processing climate data and (ii) creating decisionsupport tools to foster better understanding of climate change impacts and more effective adaptation responses.

Establish a Climate Corps to increase the pipeline of talent in climate-change mitigation and adaptation, with a specific branch dedicated to leveraging Earth observation data. The Climate Corps should adopt a tiered approach that puts members to work at the local, state, and federal levels, tailoring information and services delivered accordingly. The federal branch of the Climate Corps could be modeled on and work with existing programs such as the Presidential Innovation Fellows. The state and local branches of the Climate Corps would link federal investment in climate data and science with on-theground needs. Localities on the front lines of climate change require tailored scientific and technical expertise to support evidence-based decision-making. We recommend recruiting graduates with science and technical degrees to branches of the Climate Corps focused on serving such localities nationwide. Much like the Peace Corps embeds members within communities abroad, this Climate Corps branch would embed members within front-line communities at home to facilitate two-way communication about local needs, relevant scientific findings and capabilities, and informed investments at all levels of government.

Create a collaborative public-private partnership for climate data and science, much like the BRAIN Initiative brings together public and private entities to advance understanding of brain function. The partnership should be overseen by a civilian science board and should aim to allocate $5 billion over five years in applied research grants to universities and small businesses. These grants would spur development of innovative technologies to monitor Earth systems in response to community and industry needs. Supported by committed involvement from the Department of Defense (e.g., DARPA, IARPA), part of the partnership’s mandate should be to reinstate the MEDEA program (or follow-on incarnation) to make military data assets available to civilian researchers and data scientists.

Conclusion

There are moral and economic imperatives for the United States to take swift action, supported by consistent and credible data, on climate change. Global investment in Earth observation is insufficient to adequately respond to climate change. The United States can leverage its comparative advantage in scientific diplomacy and domestic talent to fill this information gap. By doing so, our nation can lead the world to the next great human achievement—a stable and productive climate.