COVID-19 is estimated to cost the global economy between $8 to 15 trillion USD¹, but it is not the first such outbreak, nor will it be the last. Since the 1970’s, 70% of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) have been at the human-wildlife boundary², with new infectious diseases emerging at a faster rate than ever before. Further, a common, defining feature of emerging infectious diseases is that they are triggered by anthropogenic changes to the environment. As natural environments degrade (specifically, due to climate change, loss of biodiversity and fragmentation of habitats, or invasive species), they are more likely to harbor infectious diseases and their vectors (animals or plants that transmit a pathogen)².

This memo proposes a series of actions to shift the focus of our existing EID strategies from merely reacting to disease outbreaks – which is economically devastating – to detecting, addressing, and mitigating the major upstream factors that contribute to the emergence of such diseases prior to an outbreak, and would come at orders of magnitude lower cost. Recent analysis of the exponentially rising economic damages from increasing rates of zoonotic disease emergence suggests that strategies to mitigate pandemics would provide a 250:1 to 700:1 return on investment. Even small reductions in the estimated costs of a future pandemic would be substantial. This approach would have greater success at a much lower cost in reducing the impacts of EIDs.

The next administration should

1. launch a strategy aimed at strengthening biosurveillance systems at home and abroad through a global viral weather system for spillover, including harnessing technology and data science to create predictive risk systems;
2. eliminate existing barriers in international development and foreign policy between food security, global health, and environmental sustainability by establishing a coordinator for planetary health;
3. address and alter the incentive structures that facilitate spillover, and create new incentives for investments to reduce the risk for spillover through institutions like the Development Finance Corporation; and
4. through creating the world’s first climate & biodiversity neutral development agency, to ensure that our development investments aren’t facilitating spillover risks.

Challenge and Opportunity

COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic represents the greatest global public health crisis of this generation and, potentially, since the pandemic influenza outbreak of 1918. But it is not the only new pathogen to have threatened humanity in that time, nor will it be the last. Scores of infectious diseases threaten humankind: both familiar ones like malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases, and emerging viruses, fungal, and bacterial infections like Ebola, H5N1 avian flu, Zika, severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Increasingly, emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are zoonotic: 60% are shared between wildlife and humans³. Today, the frequency of epidemics is increasing, driven by surging populations, our degradation debt owed to the planet and climate, wildlife trafficking, and globalized trade and travel.

As we have seen with COVID-19, in a thoroughly interconnected world, those of us in developed economies cannot afford to ignore the developing world if we are concerned about disease outbreaks. The failure to address Covid-19 everywhere affects our ability to address it anywhere. Not enough is known about the trajectory of the transmission of COVID-19 in the Global South. Many developing countries, especially in rural communities, are limited in their ability to test and isolate patients due to under-funded healthcare systems that lack medical staff, training, laboratories, reagents, equipment, and trained personnel. They lack the resources and bio-surveillance capacity to identify spillover events, and outbreaks even with large mortality may go undiagnosed when their symptoms mimic other diseases.¹ Moreover, EIDs can exacerbate chaos in failed and failing states, and failed states make ready homes for pandemics.⁴ COVID-19 in fact may have moved between 88-115 million people back into extreme poverty, and potentially 150 million by 2021, setting back efforts to end extreme poverty by 3 years.⁵ This is why the response to COVID-19, and the next pandemics, are not just health problems, but need be framed within a larger development and conservation context that requires investments in restructuring how we address the wicked problems facing our country and our planet.

Accordingly, as we respond to this outbreak, it is even more important to think about how we prevent the next one. The U.S. has invested significant resources to prepare for, monitor, and respond to outbreaks of existing infectious diseases. Although this investment has been insufficient as we have seen in COVID-19, there is a bigger issue: How do we avoid the next 10 pandemics? These “downstream” responses fail to address the origination of novel emerging infectious diseases, i.e. how such diseases initially arise, or the factors that accelerate their spread. We need to focus on factors that greatly contribute to disease emergence: our food systems & supply chains, environmental degradation, climate change, and the movement and trade of wildlife and wildlife products.

Much of the world’s population lives in close proximity to animals and natural environments; such proximity translates into greater disease risks. More than half of the 1,407 recognized infectious diseases are shared between humans and wildlife (“zoonotic”); such zoonotic pathogens are twice as likely to be emerging or reemerging, than are nonzoonotic pathogens. Since the 1970’s, 75% of EIDs have been at the human-wildlife boundary, with new infectious diseases emerging at a faster rate than ever before.⁶ Further, a common, defining feature of emerging infectious diseases is that they are triggered by anthropogenic changes to the environment. As natural environments degrade (specifically, due to climate change, loss of biodiversity and fragmentation of habitats, or invasive species), they are more likely to harbor infectious diseases and their vectors (animals or plants that transmit a pathogen). Understanding and addressing how such environmental changes may affect the spread of disease allows us to mitigate or even prevent outbreaks in the future.

It would be substantially more cost effective, efficient, and safer to prevent these diseases from initial emergence and spread. According to Dobson et al, the estimated cost difference of prevention would be $22.0 to $31.2 billion, compared to the expected costs of COVID-19 of $8.1 to $15.8 trillion, ranging from a 250:1 to 700:1 difference of costs. There are additional ancillary benefits to these upstream approaches, which include ecosystem services and reduced CO2 emissions.

COVID-19 presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to create a world where we anticipate, plan for, and mitigate pandemics before they happen, and even prevent them from emergence. We can address the challenge of EIDs by building the capacity and infrastructure needed to prevent future outbreaks and through addressing the root causes of EIDs. This requires us eliminate the barriers that separate global health programming from investments that address the root causes of environmental degradation, food insecurity, public health, and economic insecurity. It is also an extraordinary opportunity to take a problem-oriented approach to solving conservation & development problems, rather than a disciplinary one, and think about how we create new pathways for industrialization that meet the exigencies of climate change and sustainability.

Climate Change

Climate change expands the range and impact of pathogens, facilitating the spread of EIDs. Warmer temperatures enable pathogens and their vectors to survive and sometimes thrive in habitats previously outside of their tolerance range. It also serves to change weather patterns (like storms or rainfall) that lead to more standing water, and increase the population of mosquitos or other vectors. Climate change may also alter the range and fitness of host predators or competitors that would have limited spread of vectors under previous conditions. Vectors may also be active for longer periods of time during the day (e.g., mosquitos may have more opportunities to transmit a disease because they have more times to bite). Tropical diseases such as malaria, cholera, yellow fever, now reach previously unexposed human populations in South America, Central Africa, and Asia due to the spread of their vectors to new regions. Dengue is expected to reach New York and Washington DC by 2080.

Environmental Degradation and Disease Risk

The destruction and degradation of natural habitats and the stress and defaunation of species communities within them, facilitates the emergence of infectious diseases by increasing the opportunities for disease spread and spillover. 

First, reduced species diversity increases the relative commonness of those species that incubate, carry, and help spread a pathogen (“reservoirs”), increasing disease prevalence. Further, predators are the first to disappear after habitat degradation; the lack of a “regulatory” agent leads to an increase in reservoirs, increasing opportunities for transmission as with Lyme disease in the Eastern U.S. Lower resources could mean less competitors, another regulatory agent. Environmental degradation may also increase shedding rates by stressing animals, encouraging the spread of the disease. Deforestation and degradation of habitats may also facilitate the spread of infectious disease by increasing habitat that favors disease vectors, such as mosquitos (rice paddies around forest edges), or edge habitat that favors invasions by invasive species.

Finally, changes in landscape geometry and makeup, coupled with changes in density in domesticated and wild species, may draw together formerly isolated populations, increasing spillover risks to humans and domesticated animals from wildlife populations, and vice versa. Tropical forest edges create spillover opportunities for novel human viruses, as humans and their livestock are more likely to come into contact with wildlife when more than 25% of the original forest cover is lost.⁷ Environmental degradation, driven by forestry, mining, and agriculture, increases opportunities for hunting wildlife, and the potential for spillover.

Invasive Species, Wildlife Trade, Pet Trade, and Food Systems

The invasion of foreign species (pathogens, vectors, and reservoirs) into novel habitats also spreads infectious disease. Such introductions may happen due to increasing globalization of industry, trade, and tourism; through the pet trade (as what happened with the U.S. outbreak of Monkeypox), through legal or illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products; or through habitat changes that facilitate invasions by alien plants or animals. Invasive alien species may carry disease into populations previously unexposed to those pathogens. Invasive species may also destroy native species or their food supplies, creating an unbalanced ecosystem more vulnerable to disease. As SARS-COV-2 has shown us, wildlife trade is especially prone to spillover, as the capture, handling, slaughter, and ingestion of wildlife can lead to the transfer of a pathogen from wildlife to humans. Ebola is thought to have arisen due to bushmeat hunting of bats and nonhuman primates; HIV is thought to have arisen due to bushmeat hunting of chimpanzees; MERS is thought to have arisen due to animal husbandry (camels).

Plan of Action

Currently, U.S. policies to combat and address EIDs are focused on costly responses to individual outbreaks, rather than reducing the chance for an outbreak to occur. Artificial barriers between public health responses, food security, animal health, biodiversity conservation, and national security also exacerbate the problem. On the international level, there is a total failure to standardize disease data, link it with environmental change, and assess risks despite scientific evidence linking disease emergence and environmental change. Confronting EIDs more effectively and efficiently requires a multifaceted and multidisciplinary approach. To better understand and address the threat posed by EIDs and develop more effective responses to this threat, this memo recommends the following steps:

Establish a biosurveillance system in the most biodiverse places

A first line of defense against emerging zoonotic viruses is dependent on countries having adequate capacities for monitoring and reducing spillover of viruses from wildlife to people (either directly or through intermediate animals such as livestock). Existing biosurveillance efforts are typically not sufficiently robust, as evidenced most-recently by the spillover of SARS-CoV-2 from animals to people in Wuhan, China.

Through massively better biosurveillance of targeted pathogens through new technologies, including low cost molecular testing to be able to understand opportunities for spillover in the United States, as well as in the Amazon Basin, Wallacea, and the Congo Basin, we can establish a global, integrated monitoring network that forms the basis of an actionable biosurveillance system. Key will be increasing world class lab capacity in the places where spillover is more likely to happen and development of new low cost technologies that can help identify new pathogens, and their reservoirs in situ. With this networked of networked devices, patterns of emergence and spread can also be monitored in near real-time, producing transformative data on the epidemiological and ecological progression of novel pathogens. However, this will require setting up a modern surveillance network in partnership with other health organizations with a large foot print on the ground. These include the CDC, FHI360, WCS, Veterinarians without Borders, and the World Health Organization. It will also require the US to create a Field ParaVets Program, a rapid training program for rapid response and paraveterinarian specialists that would be focused on one-health surveillance and outbreak detection.

Utilizing big data, machine learning, and models from epidemiology, ecology, and evolution, we can begin to develop the integrated frameworks and analytical capacity that will enable a global forecasting system for future pandemics and EIDs. Much like the Global Weather Services enterprise, we can create a system that provides information and services to front-line actors, governments, health agencies, civil society, and front-line communities that enables them to anticipate and respond to the emergence of new diseases. Furthermore, because of the integrated nature of such a Global Biosurveillance System, capitalizing on the ecological and evolutionary understanding described above, we can create actionable insights that will allow conservationists, public health officials, food system agents, and others to move upstream from the emergence of these novel pathogens to turn off the underlying drivers.

Implementation

Creating a Global Viral Intelligence Service for Predicting Pathogen Spillovers. We need a global surveillance network for emerging infectious diseases to gather information on the incidence of disease in populations of wildlife, humans, and domesticated animals, and agriculture, at every stage of the trade supply chain beginning with free-ranging populations and extending to wildlife farms, confiscated animals being smuggled, and animals legally being shipped at points of export, and create adaptive “weather” maps of the risks of disease transmission. This service, would be based within the NIH, and work closely with the Centers for Disease Control, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch, and the USGS National Wildlife Health Center 

Improving Monitoring and Prevention Internationally. The US must take a leadership role to strengthen efforts by UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), UNDP, UNEP, and the World Health Organization, to develop a systematic approach for early detection and rapid response to identify and control emerging infectious disease of human, wildlife, and domesticated animals, including delineating risks from wildlife trade, environmental degradation, and climate change. Through USAID, in partnership with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the Navy Medical Research Centers in Egypt, Lima, and Singapore, the US would develop new funding and technical assistant programs for building disease monitoring lab activity and personnel, building on USAID’s IDENTIFY program, previous programs including PREDICT, PREVENT, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, and DTRA’s Cooperative Biological Engagement Program.

Expansion of Existing Authorities to Defend our Borders. The new administration should expand the mission of APHIS to address not only disease issues that affect agricultural animals but also those associated with zoonotic and wildlife diseases, and increased focus on disease prevention, preparedness, detection, and early response activities. We may give CDC 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. We may also amend the Lacey Act to strengthen the USFWS’s ability to identify, designate and stop injurious species, including dangerous pathogens from entering the United States, and from moving in interstate commerce if and when they arrive here.

Breaking down barriers between food security, global health, and sustainability

It is clear that how we may address pandemics requires us to break down the barriers – such as the health accounts in USAID – that limit opportunities to take a transdisciplinary approach to how we may address pandemics. Emerging pathogens are not limited to human health or wildlife, but cross over into the disruptive pests and pathogens that address the crops we grow, the food we store, and ecosystems we value. Our solutions to EIDs require us to think more broadly than global health, but think about health systems, food safety and security, wildlife trade, and environmental change.

Implementation

Address the Drivers of Pandemic Emergence. Work with Congress to allow for greater multisectoral programming within USAID to address the underlying drivers of extinction. Proactive efforts that minimize risk of emerging diseases are less costly than the economic and mortality costs of responding to these pathogens once they have emerged. Harnessing intelligence from the Global Viral Intelligence Service, the US should also fund programs to mitigate the underlying factors that facilitate disease emergence, including addressing food systems and global production of feed, food, materials, and their supply chains, and environmental degradation. This includes looking at how we may reduce risk through (1) protecting habitats, conserving biodiversity, reducing deforestation, restoring degraded habitat; (2) prioritizing international transdisciplinary research collaborations under the Ecohealth, OneHealth, and Planetary Health Frameworks; and (3) using ecological interventions to reduce human disease burdens and pandemic risk through experimental management and conservation.

Encourage a whole of government approach through the leadership of the National Security Council. The National Security Council should coordinate both international and domestic approaches to take a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing the upstream factors of pandemics, working in consultation with PCAST, NSTC, CEQ, OSTP, and OMB, and through an interagency process with representation from State, USAID, DFC, DOD, Treasury, HHS, NOAA, NASA, USGS, ODNI, and other relevant federal agencies, through an interagency working group.

Changing the incentives that drive spillover

Regardless of the exact determinants of the origin of COVID-19, this pandemic is primarily due to human behavior. Wildlife wet markets bring together an array of wild animals, in stressful and confined conditions, that would not normally occur. This creates an environment conducive to the spread of disease. Consumption of these wild animals (such as bats, pangolins, and even primates) puts human health at risk by providing an opportunity for the virus to potentially spillover from non-human animals to humans. We need to change the incentives for human behavior, and facilitate that change through modernization of the food system, animal husbandry, and supply chains, and increasing the sustainability of systems to reduce the demand for wildlife products that produce pandemics and decimate wild populations.

Creating new technological systems to better protect the forests tied to direct payments for conservation systems & monitoring (whose value is based on spillover risks & biodiversity value) to change behavior for those at greatest risk of spillover, and who have few other economic choices. Some early attempts exist to change behavior around wildlife trade, such as campaigns in China to reduce the consumption of shark fin soup, that can serve as models for ways to leverage new technologies and behavioral science approaches (gamification, peer networks, positive and negative reinforcement, etc.) to reduce demand for wildlife products. This, coupled with market signals that incentivize proper behavior could produce significant benefit.

Implementation

End Implicit and Explicit Subsidies that Drive Spillover at home and abroad. Many threats to planetary health, including emerging infectious diseases, are unwittingly subsidized and facilitated by the government. These subsidies include those in water use, energy, agriculture, transportation, fisheries, land management, and trade. Ending subsidies domestically may not only support planetary health, but free up revenue to the program. Internationally, subsidies violate the underlying principles of global trade through the World Trade Organization and allow for countervailing measures. Further, parties to the WTO may implement trade related measures at protecting the environment. These would serve to benefit the sustainability of US industry and make our domestic and better regulated products more competitive.

Create new Financial Innovations & Encouraging Investment for Preventing Pandemics. Financial innovations are a powerful class of behavioral incentives. We should consider innovations such as Advanced Market Commitments, Direct Payments for Conservation, Social Impact Bonds & Direct Payments, Franchise Models, and Nutrient and Carbon Trading, coupled with mechanisms such as the Development Credit Authority within the new Development Finance Institution which guarantees up to 50% of “first loss” of an investment to encourage the development of new capital to support Planetary Health and addressing emerging infectious diseases. The SEC could also require companies to report measures on their environmental sustainability, and potential risk from environmental degradation, climate change or pollution on their operations.

Creating a climate & biodiversity neutral development agency

Climate change and biodiversity degradation will be a major driver of the spread of EIDs. To mitigate what is an increasing threat to human security, USAID needs to ensure that its entire portfolio of activities, do not on average, worsen climate change or undermine biodiversity loss. This requires us to think beyond just funding sporadic climate and conservation programs, but thinking about the systematic impact of the Agency’s activities on climate change, and ensuring that US development investments are generating a net impact of zero emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, and are not driving species defaunation and extinction. Such an approach supports the SDGs, and will allow for countries to find new pathways to industrialization and development. It will enable the Agency to stop contributing to the very problems it is trying to solve such as weather-related humanitarian crises, livelihood re-engineering due to decreasing water levels, and conflict over arable land.

Climate & biodiversity neutrality does not detract from other development goals, such as economic growth. While the United States should invest heavily in encouraging sustainable economic growth –and it is in the environment’s interest to do so — it is imperative that we act in a way that does not worsen the effects of climate change or the extinction crisis. Future economic growth must work to reduce rather than expand emissions of greenhouse gases. Working towards climate & biodiversity neutrality would benefit the people assisted by USAID, as well as the environment. Certain USAID programs are inherently emissions-intensive, such as responding to disasters or building roads. Achieving climate & biodiversity neutrality across the entire basket of USAID foreign assistance activities allows development activities in one country that reduce emissions (such as forestry, biodiversity conservation, and renewable energy) to balance activities in other countries that increase emissions (humanitarian aid missions, roadbuilding). USAID can become, once again, the most forward-thinking development agency, shining as an innovative example among other donor organizations throughout the world.

Implementation

Create an annual estimate, through the annual budget process, of the approximate carbon impact of USAID programs, and create an office within the Policy Bureau to carry out this analysis. This office will lead a Climate Neutral Task Force (CNTF), with representatives from each Washington Bureau and, initially, those Missions that choose to participate in a comprehensive assessment of both their programs and operations. Bureaus will be represented by environment officers and experts in the key sectors — infrastructure & engineering, energy, agriculture, water, and natural resources, and our own operational management. One year appears a reasonable estimate for how long it would take for the CNTF to accomplish the work described in the proposal. We recommend undertaking the emissions assessment process in several self-selected, pilot Missions, in the first year, and then expand to the whole Agency in the next year.

Summary

Never before have so many children in America used so much educational technology, and never before has it been so important to ensure that these technologies are secure. Currently, however, school administrators are overburdened with complex security considerations that make it challenging for them to keep student data secure. The educational technologies now common in America’s physical and virtual classrooms should meet security standards designed to protect its students. As a civil rights agency, the Department of Education has a responsibility to lead a coordinated approach to ensuring a baseline of security for all students in the American education system.

This policy initiative will support America’s students and schools at a time when educational experiences—and student information—are increasingly online and vulnerable to exploitation. The plan of action outlined below includes a new Department of Education educational technology security rule, training support for schools, a voluntary technology self-certification system, an online registry of certified technologies to help grow a secure educational technology market, and processes for industry support and collaboration in this work. Combined, these efforts will create a safer digital learning environment for the nation’s students and a more robust educational technology marketplace.

Summary

To prevent another medical supply chain breakdown like the one experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Government must create an emergency response plan to activate domestic, local medical supply manufacturing. A national network of small-to-mid-size manufacturers and prototyping labs — a U.S. Prototyping and Manufacturing Reserve — should be formalized and incentivized to act as first responders for emergency innovation and medical supply manufacturing needs.

To properly equip the Reserve, the Federal Government should build a comprehensive library of open source medical and emergency supply “blueprints” — a U.S. Digital Stockpile — that consists of manufacturing requirements to enable distributed local emergency production. Combined, these new national security resources will facilitate rapid local response to both regional disasters and international supply chain disruptions.

Summary

The next administration should capitalize on recent interest in cycling spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic by committing to triple the share of commutes made by bicycle from 0.5% in 2019¹ to 1.5% by 2024. This goal is achievable through policies that make cycling safer and more affordable.

Other than walking, cycling is the least pollutive mode of transportation. Led by the Department of Transportation (USDOT), the next administration can encourage a nationwide shift from driving to cycling by adjusting various policies related to cost, road design, and automobile safety. USDOT can further encourage biking by holding states accountable for reductions in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG) from transportation, and traffic fatalities among cyclists and pedestrians.

Challenge and Opportunity

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many Americans to begin riding bicycles and electric bicycles (e-bikes) in order to exercise, enjoy the outdoors, and maintain physical distancing while traveling. Cities including Los Angeles and Houston have seen significant upticks in cycling in 2020, while bikeshare systems in Las Vegas, Chicago and New York set new ridership records. A sustained move toward cycling could reduce GHG emissions from transportation, the sector that is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States. Pedal bikes produce less than 1/15 as much GHG/mile as taxis or ridehailing services (e.g., Uber and Lyft), and around 1/10 as much a private electric automobile. Lifecycle emissions from bikes and bikeshare are nearly as low as pedal bikes, and e-bikes in particular could replace short automobile trips in urban areas.

These data indicate that tripling the share of commutes made by bike from 0.5% today to 1.5% could, by displacing driving, reduce GHG emissions by the equivalent of 3.8 billion car trips annually. A mode shift toward biking would also improve health and reduce urban congestion (because a bike requires less street space than an automobile).²

However, there is no guarantee that the current uptick in cycling will endure. Prior “bike booms” in the United States—in the 1890s, the mid-1930s, and the early 1970s—all ultimately faded. 

Part of the challenge is that the federal government has historically done little to encourage biking. In fact, federal policies frequently impede cycling by making the activity more dangerous, especially as automobiles have grown heavier and taller (e.g., guidance that speed limits be set according to the “85th percent rule,” which pushes them higher). From 2009 to 2018, cyclist fatalities grew 38% to 1,100 annually, more than eight times the number of Americans killed from rail collisions, to which USDOT allocated $245 million in FY 2020. 

By implementing policies that make cycling safer and cheaper the federal government can pave the way for sustained growth.

Plan of Action

The next administration should take immediate steps to reduce the risk of injury or death to cyclists while reducing the financial cost of cycling. The next administration should also incentivize transportation projects that reduce VMT and GHG emissions, which will boost proposals that encourage biking. Recommended actions are presented below.

Safety 

Under the next administration, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should implement the following specific measures to reduce biking deaths and injuries:

• Direct states to share locations of all traffic collisions resulting in death or serious injury, flagging those involving cyclists and pedestrians. NHTSA and FHWA should use the data to create annual High Injury Network maps. 
• Direct states to submit up-to-date maps of all bicycle infrastructure, including protected and unprotected bicycle lanes. USDOT field offices should audit this information, and states should receive annual grades for their efforts to reduce pedestrian and cyclist crashes. 
• NHTSA should update the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) to include metrics such as serious injuries and the presence of protected or unprotected biking infrastructure. 
• NHTSA should publish revisions to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) that credit automakers for vehicles that minimize risk to vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists, through crash-avoidance technologies as well as through designs reducing likelihood of serious injury or death in the event of a collision. 
• FHWA should issue guidance to states prohibiting them from setting “negative safety goals” that lead to annual increases in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities that are treated as successes. 
• FHWA should eliminate the outdated “85th percentile rule” as a recommendation in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
• FHWA should issue guidance encouraging the use of federal funds on temporary “popup” projects designed as pilots for future infrastructure investments. 
• USDOT should require states to demonstrate provision of access and safe accommodation for non-motorized users (i.e., cyclists and pedestrians).

Affordability 

The next administration should take the following actions to make biking more affordable to all Americans: 

• The U.S. Trade Representative should make bicycle and bicycle components exempt from Section 301 tariffs, which would reduce the cost of importing items like children’s bikes and lithium batteries from China. This would reduce the cost to consumers of purchasing and maintaining a bicycle as well as the cost to businesses and cities of operating public bikeshare services. 
• The administration should support passage of H.R. 7330, which would make bicycle and bikeshare expenses eligible for pre-tax commuter benefits. The administration should also support revising IRS 30D, the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit, to extend subsidies to e-bikes as well as electric automobiles.

Other actions 

The next administration should take the following additional actions to further encourage a conducive environment for biking at the state level: 

• Re-establish GHG reduction as a performance measure for transportation and issue annual ratings of state performance. 
• Revise the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program to include goals of reducing VMT. 
• Issue USDOT guidance on Section 109 of the US Code pertaining to federal-aid highways that clarifies that maintenance projects must demonstrate access for all transportation modes (e.g., protective infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians). 
• Support the language in H.R. 2 that the FHWA adopt “fix it first” principles favoring road maintenance over new construction.

Conclusion

Locking in the sharp growth in cycling spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic could enable the American transportation network to become safer, cleaner, and more efficient, especially in urban areas. The next administration should capitalize on this opportunity through a suite of complementary actions that make biking less dangerous and more affordable. These actions will encourage those who recently began cycling to continue, while compelling millions of additional Americans to begin using a bicycle in place of an automobile.

In his posthumous op-ed, House Representative John Lewis wrote, “Democracy is not a state. It is an act,” and challenged all Americans to “do [their] part to help build…a nation and world society at peace with itself.” In our generation, where technology is integrated into virtually every aspect of public and private life, preserving the American democracy must involve ensuring that digital tools and platforms are employed in service of our communities, facilitating the productive and equitable exchange of information and opportunity, rather than being hijacked to sow misinformation and discord. In recent months, we have observed ample examples of both cases. Young Americans are using technology to raise awareness of ongoing racial justice issues, which have led to significant policy shifts. However, at the same time, members of the public are sharing falsehoods about the COVID-19 global pandemic, costing lives and extending economic devastation.

To ensure that upcoming generations can positively leverage online spaces and rise above the ever-present call to division, digital citizenship—encompassing the critical competencies to discern fact from fiction, navigate relationships, and use technology to champion change—must be fostered, beginning in our schools where students already engage with technology regularly. The work to develop digital citizens and future leaders is underway in several states and districts, and there exists numerous ways that the federal government can supply further momentum—setting a national vision around digital citizenship, building the capacity of educators, and strategically investing necessary funds.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the crucial need for science to inform policy. However, the science-policy interface has a broader history of systemic challenges spanning sectors, from climate, to energy, to water resources, to cybersecurity and beyond. The near-term policy window created by the pandemic offers an ideal time to act while the attention of policymakers and the public is focused on the key role of science in policy. There are five key areas of action to create meaningful progress in carving improved pathways for science advice:

1. Sharpening the focus of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Act (P.L. 115-435) to define scientific knowledge as a key subset of “evidence” and develop formal structures for non-federal academic experts to participate in the development of the required agency learning agendas.
2. Widening the role of Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers., especially the Science and Technology Policy Institute.
3. Leveraging the Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement (IPA) to bring more non-federal subject matter experts into key government positions.
4. Reducing administrative barriers to the establishment of Federal Advisory Committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
5. Revising the Broader Impacts Requirements for National Science Foundation grantees to include more direct pathways for the outputs of scientific research to reach decision-makers.

Grid modernization should be a major part of a national infrastructure-investment initiative. Effectively and efficiently modernizing the U.S. electric grid requires rapid deployment of innovative grid technologies. The next administration should establish a Grid Resilience Innovation Demonstration (GRID) Network, run in partnership between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DoD), to test and accelerate deployment of such technologies. The GRID Network would integrate and build on existing microgrids on federal installations and other relevant facilities, resulting in a group of geographically distributed test beds that can be managed and operated as a national user facility. The distributed nature of the network would allow test beds to ensure that solutions are compatible with a variety of grid technologies and operational structures and would also insulate the network from security threats, and other risks. Prioritizing establishment of the GRID Network early in the next administration will enable our nation to quickly realize the benefits of a modern electric grid, including enhanced resilience to natural disasters, entrepreneurship opportunities, and job growth. Failure to act will leave our national grid vulnerable to hostile actors, rob the country of needed shovel-ready construction projects and manufacturing jobs, and undermine U.S. leadership in electric sector innovation and the resulting impacts to our economy.

Challenge and Opportunity

The U.S. electric grid is a critical backbone of our nation’s economy, national security, health, and social interactions. Yet the current grid is ill-suited to modern demands. Our nation’s grid contains many critical components that were originally constructed in the early 20th century. The grid as a whole is based on an outdated structure that was not designed for today’s varying power demand requirements, such as for the internet data centers, or for the widescale integration of intermittent sources of electricity such as wind turbines and solar panels. The grid is also poorly equipped to withstand the many cyber, physical, and electromagnetic threats that exist today. 

These problems can cause extensive and expensive blackouts, such as the widespread outages across the Northeast in 2003 that cost $6 billion in damages. The possibility of foreign interference presents a threat multiplier. In 2015, a Russian assault on the Ukrainian grid cut power for six hours in the dead of winter. A similar attack on the U.S. grid is possible. In fact, the same malware the triggered the Ukraine attack has been found in US-based critical infrastructure facilities. 

There is a clear need to make the U.S. electric grid much more secure to thwart attacks, robust to withstand physical threats, resilient to ensure rapid and full recovery from adverse impacts, stronger to accommodate greater demands, and flexible to enable a broader deployment of clean-energy technologies.

Yet grid modernization is easier said than done. The U.S. electric grid is a massive, complex system that comprises various technologies for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution as well as multiple operators, regulators, and markets to ensure the continual flow of electricity. Few incentives or financially-attractive opportunities exist for grid stakeholders to demonstrate and deploy innovative models and technologies. And finally, the national-security benefits of a secure, robust, and resilient grid do not deliver direct, sufficient financial gains, creating a market failure that leaves the grid vulnerable to interference.

Plan of Action

The next administration should establish the Grid Resilience Innovation Demonstration (GRID) Network, a national-scale test facility designed to propel the nation toward a more secure, robust, and resilient grid that can strengthen economic and national security while enabling a clean-energy future. The GRID Network should comprise multiple, geographically distributed test beds that are widely accessible to institutions and researchers seeking to demonstrate technologies in prototypical environments. These test beds would be user facilities similar to those owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE).

The overall goal of the GRID Network would be to support development, demonstration, and deployment of innovations in grid operation and technology, which are needed to address the evolving energy needs and expanding risks. The types of innovations could run from small to large scale, and from technical to operations, for example, components for high-voltage transmission or distribution, smart meters and associated cyber controls, direct current connects and disconnects, and microgrid operations with a variety of sources, loads and sizes.

The GRID Network would focus on innovations at mid- to high technology-readiness levels, i.e., innovations that have already been demonstrated successful at a limited level and seem like promising candidates for scale-up and commercialization. GRID Network test beds would provide the capacity to test at all scales from individual components in situ up to full end-to-end tests from the electricity generator to the final use. As modernization of the grid continues to occur, the anticipated outcomes will continue to evolve, and this facility will enable more innovations to be developed rapidly and tested such that the decision and risk of implementation can be reduced, which in turn should facilitate deployment. After all, utilities and investors want proven technologies, not science projects. As a result, we will see a more resilient grid that is both more secure and more robust (i.e., less blackouts, more value, savings and/or avoided costs).

GRID Network test beds could serve as official sites for the government to validate and certify any concept or technology intended for use in national-security applications. Through partnerships with community colleges, test beds could also offer workforce-development opportunities and vocational training to prepare technicians to install and operate next-generation grid technologies.

Implicit in the proposed action is that there are innovative technologies and strategies for operation that could be tested and rapidly deployed. While this has not been demonstrated through a survey or collection of data, it is a reasonable assumption based on our knowledge of the research and development (R&D) that is being done in this area as well as some general issues that impact the rapid, successful advancement from R&D to demonstration and deployment (i.e., crossing the so-called “Valley of Death”). Having a user facility aimed at helping bridge that gap that is available to companies and researchers widely would encourage innovators and innovations to surface, as has been demonstrated to work well in the past in the DoD and DOE. A minimally viable prototype will be needed for testing, which focuses the role of the facility between “development” and “deployment.” The costs for testing would be covered by the government, and like the existing user facilities, access to apply for time on GRID would be open to all ideas through a merit-review process. As a result, innovators should be motivated to develop their ideas to a product or operations model that can be tested given the low or zero cost of testing because the value of a having a government-tested and demonstrated device or operating model will be very high.

As is typical for federally-funded user facilities, the GRID Network would be run by a private entity (e.g., an objective management organization) through a public-private partnership with government agencies: in this case, likely DoD and DOE. The partnership could be managed by either agency or by an external entity, such as the National Resilient Grid Authority (NRGA) conceptualized in a 2020 report from the National Commission on Grid Resilience. Existing microgrids and other assets at DoD and DOE sites could provide the foundation for the GRID Network. The GRID Network will also build on and enhance the grid-resilience and modernization efforts that were established and have been pursued at both agencies.

Establishing and managing the GRID Network would cost the Federal Government an estimated $25–50 million per year at the low end to $200–300 million per year at the high end. This funding range is consistent with the funding levels for similar research and development facilities that DOE and DoD have supported over the last 15 years. Funding at the high end would support more sophisticated, comprehensive testing equipment, would permit users to take more time to test ideas, and would permit testing of more high-risk, high-reward ideas. Funding at the high end would also support efforts beyond just testing, such as development of national standards and protocols for grid operations, pursuit of collaborative technologies that would benefit niche applications, such as defense resilience pilot projects, and technology certifications.

The U.S. electric grid must be modernized to enable more use of renewable energy, deploy storage, and assure we improve the resilience. A test facility, such as the GRID facility described above, could help with modernization and entice investments toward deployment of new technologies. As a result, federal investment in the GRID Network would pay off directly or indirectly in four key ways:

1. Modernizing the U.S. electric grid will create shovel-ready construction jobs across the country. Since the GRID facility would be oriented toward rapid development and deployment of innovations, the facility could help enable aggressive and comprehensive modernization of the electric grid, which would involve construction jobs.
2. Grid components that are critical to U.S. infrastructure and national security—ranging from sensors to transformers—must be made through a trusted U.S. supply chain. Investments in the GRID Network hence represent investments in American manufacturing.
3. The GRID Network will support user generation of intellectual property and associated small business start-ups because some of the innovations that are tested and deployed will be manufactured, distributed and installed by start-ups, which will strengthen the U.S. supply chain. This new wave of business activity will propel the U.S. economy for years to come.
4. Grid modernization is a huge effort that will cost at least $500 billion and likely $1–2 trillion. Investing in technologies that could facilitate modernization will retire risks for grid modernization as the decisions by the various grid operators will be based on testing at an applicable scale. As a result, the GRID facility should help ensure the costs for grid modernization are in the middle of the range rather than at the higher end or above.

Conclusion

The U.S. electric grid is a crucial piece of the nation’s infrastructure. If it fails, critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, transportation, defense, agriculture, and manufacturing are at risk of failure as well. Yet the grid remains unacceptably vulnerable to threats large and small. There is a real danger of attacks on the grid by adversarial nations, and natural disasters can wipe out large sections of the grid for hours, days, or longer. Even factors as seemingly trivial as mylar balloons, small arms fire, and broken tree branches can cause costly damage when they interfere with critical grid components. It is past time to create a more robust and resilient system. Creating a testing ground for innovative solutions in grid operations and technology is an important step: one that will not only shore up a glaring weakness in our national security, but will also boost our economy through shovel-ready construction projects, creation of new and good-paying jobs, and development of intellectual property.

Summary

The next administration should establish a national fellowship for scientists and engineers to accelerate the transformation of research discoveries into scalable, market-ready technologies. Entrepreneurship is driving innovation across the U.S. economy—with the troubling exception of early-stage science. Transitioning scientific discoveries from the laboratory into prototypes remains too speculative and costly to garner significant support from industry or venture-capital firms. This makes it difficult for many of our nation’s science innovators to translate their research into new products and puts the United States at risk of falling behind in the quickly evolving global economy.

Entrepreneurial fellowships for scientists and engineers have emerged as an effective strategy for translating research into new products and businesses, showing tremendous early impact and a readiness to scale. The next administration should advance this proven strategy at the federal level by creating a national entrepreneurial fellowship. This new entrepreneurial fellowship would leverage our nation’s investments in science to drive national prosperity, security, and global competitiveness.

Summary

The United States accounts for over 20% of global deaths related to COVID-19 despite only having 4% of the world’s population. This unacceptable reality is in part due to the tsunami of misinformation surrounding COVID-19 that has flooded our nation. Misinformation not only decreases current compliance with best practices for containing and mitigating the spread of COVID-19, but will also feed directly into resistance against future administration of a vaccine or additional public-health measures.

The next administration should establish an office at the Department of Health and Human Services dedicated to combating COVID-19 misinformation. This office should lead a coordinated effort that:

1. Ensures that evidence-based findings are at the core of COVID-19 response strategies.
2. Utilizes data science and behavioral analytics to detect and counter COVID-19 misinformation.
3. Works with social-media companies to remove misinformation from online platforms.
4. Partners with online influencers to promote credible information about COVID-19.
5. Encourages two-way conversations between public-health officials and the general public.
6. Ensures that public-health communications are supported by on-the-ground action.

The next administration can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by helping transition the commercial truck and bus industries to cleaner fuels like electric power and hydrogen. A key role for the Federal Government is to support the build-out of a nationwide network of zero-emission (i.e., alternative) fueling stations, including electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations. Achieving this goal will require federal leadership and significant collaboration with Congress, states, electric utilities, the private sector, and others. The amount of effort and time necessary for this effort means that it must be a day one priority to achieve meaningful progress within four years. A robust network of zero-emission fueling stations for trucks and buses will facilitate a significant and permanent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, improve air quality for communities nationwide, result in safer highways, and help create of hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Challenge and Opportunity 

The threat of climate change demands immediate action. The transportation sector is the top emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, outpacing the energy, agriculture, residential, and commercial sectors. Any serious effort to cut GHG emissions overall must therefore include serious efforts to cut transportation-related GHGs. 

GHG emissions from commercial trucks and buses contribute significantly to the transportation sector’s overall emissions. From 1990 to 2018, GHG emissions from commercial trucks and buses increased far more than emissions for passenger cars (emissions increased by 90.1% for commercial trucks, 158.8% for buses, and only 21.6% for passenger cars) despite the lower number of vehicle-miles traveled for commercial trucks and buses. In 2018, the collective emissions from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks were the second-largest category of transportation-related GHG emissions.

Alternative fuels like hydrogen fuels, biofuels, and electric power present an enormous opportunity to cut transportation-related emissions while boosting the U.S. economy. Alternative fuels are gaining commercial acceptance in the freight and tourism industries. There is also an emerging U.S. industry around manufacturing alternative-powered vehicles that promises to create millions of new jobs in the years ahead. Domestic companies that have already seen success in this space include Workhorse, a company based in Lordstown, OH that is producing electric delivery vehicles for UPS, FedEx and DHL; Rivian has recently signed a contract with Amazon to provide 100,000 electric delivery vans; and Tesla, the world’s most valuable car company, is developing its own battery-powered long-haul trucks.

But there is a major barrier hampering wider deployment of these vehicles: fueling stations. Adoption of zero-emission trucks and buses will be slow until a robust, nationwide network of zero-emission fueling stations is available. Modest efforts are already underway in California and the northeastern United States to build new zero-emission fueling stations, but federal leadership is needed to accelerate and expand these efforts to a national scale. The Federal Government can facilitate build-out of the country’s network of zero-emission fueling stations by providing tax credits and other financial incentives for station construction and by providing the nationwide planning and coordination capacities that the private sector alone cannot.

Key considerations

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that there were 41 open retail hydrogen fueling stations in the United States in 2019, with an additional 36 stations in various stages of development. Most of these stations are in California and the northeastern states. Various electric-fueling stations—most designed for passenger cars—are scattered throughout the United States. The next administration should focus on building out the national network of zero-emission fueling stations in the Midwest and other parts of the United States that currently lack zero-emission infrastructure. The following considerations can guide this effort.

The commercial truck and bus industry. Most truck and bus companies are small businesses, utilizing fleets of seven to ten vehicles and operating on tight profit margins. Capital is limited for many of these companies, especially in the wake of the devastation that COVID-19 has wreaked on the larger economy and tourism industry. Therefore, it will be difficult for these companies to invest in new, alternative-powered vehicles. Moreover, the rate of fleet turnover for most trucking and bus fleets is slow – a company will typically retain their commercial trucks and buses for a decade or more, and often times these vehicles will then be sold to a secondary market where they will be utilized for several years longer. The next administration should work closely with stakeholders to craft financial incentives that allow commercial truck and bus companies to purchase new trucks and buses that run on alternative fuels.

Travel-plaza owners. Commercial travel-plaza owners are among the largest distributors of diesel fuel and gasoline in the nation. Travel-plaza owners also generate revenue by selling food and other items to truck drivers and other motorists. The deployment of zero emission fueling stations could represent an existential threat to many of these operators if handled poorly: for instance, if zero-emission fueling stations become direct competitors to existing travel plazas. But commercial travel-plaza owners could also be important champions of zero-emission fueling stations if deployment is handled well: for instance, if resources are provided to help travel-plaza owners incorporate zero-emission fueling infrastructure into existing facilities, or if operators who build out zero-emission fueling infrastructure are rewarded with grants to upgrade on-site food and retail establishments.

Congress. Congress must provide new tools for the federal government to accelerate deployment of zero-emission fueling stations. Specifically, Congress should amend title 23, United States Code (USC) so that federal dollars are eligible to support construction of zero-emission fueling stations, including at truck rest stops and via Community Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects.

Alternative-fuel types. There currently is no “preferred” alternative fuel in the commercial truck and bus industries. While some think hydrogen fuel has the greatest potential, others are betting on natural gas and batteries. For now, most businesses are making decisions based on current advantages and limits of different alternative fuels. For example, battery cells are less attractive for long-haul trucking and bus trips because of the batteries’ weight and their limited range compared to motor fuels. But battery-powered vehicles are ideal for city deliveries, where many daily trips can be completed on a single charge. The next administration should therefore work to expand the nation’s network of zero-emission fueling stations in ways that support multiple alternative-fuel types.

Fueling technologies and costs. The reality is that zero emission technologies are relatively new. There is still work that must be done to understand the emissions-reduction and fuel-reduction technologies that are available, the challenges to wider adoption of these technologies, where these technologies effectively fit diverse geography and efficient supply-chain needs, and the potential emissions reductions. But doing this work will result in significant impacts on truck freight emissions and fuel usage.

Existing federal regulations. The commercial truck and bus industries are highly regulated. New fueling technologies will need to work within these regulations, not against them. For example, federal requirements limit the number of hours a truck or bus driver may work per day. If refueling an alternative-fuel truck takes longer than refueling a diesel truck, drivers will lose valuable driving time. Additionally, weight limits on commercial vehicles designed to prevent damage to road and bridge infrastructure also discourage the use of heavy batteries for long-haul trips, as the weight of the batteries displace the amount of freight a truck can haul. The next administration should be aware of issues like these, crafting policies to encourage development of alternative-fueling technologies that do not inadvertently hurt businesses or undermine other priorities like highway safety or infrastructure maintenance. Truck and bus drivers should also be included in these discussions, to better understand how to successfully integrate existing practices.

Truck and bus manufacturers and dealers. A handful of companies manufacture the majority of commercial trucks and buses sold and used in the United States. Most of these companies are not significantly invested in alternative-fuel vehicles. The next administration needs to be mindful that it is not pitting established manufacturers against the startups referenced above in supporting the expansion of zero-emission fueling stations, lest it encounter serious opposition among the business community and Congress. Finally, the U.S. Department of Transportation reports approximately 12.5 million commercial trucks and buses are currently registered in the United States. There will need to be significant manufacturing capacity to support the wide-scale adoption of alternative-powered trucks and buses, and these manufacturers could be a valuable partner for this effort, especially if they understand the market potential.

Plan of Action

Keeping the considerations above in mind, there are several concrete actions that the next administration can take to build out of a national network of zero-emission fueling stations. In its first 100 days, the next administration should: 

Prioritize passage of critical legislation

This legislation should provide the Federal Government the authorities and resources needed to support the build out of this zero-emission fueling network. Specifically, this legislation should

• Provide flexibility in title 23 USC to enable states to apply gas-tax dollars towards funding zero-emission fueling stations at truck parking stops and other places along highways – where such projects make sense.
• Allocate resources for financial incentives, including grants, tax rebates, and credits, to incentivize adoption of zero-emission fueling stations and vehicles.
• Utilize “Jason’s Law” surveys (a federal product that documents truck-parking capacity nationwide, including parking shortages) to identify truck-parking locations that could be used for fueling stations.
• Authorize pilot programs and public-private partnerships to provide flexibility in developing “best practices” and techniques with key stakeholders, including the private sector, for building out a commercially viable nationwide network of zero-emission fueling stations.
• Permit fast-track approval to site zero-emission fueling stations, in consultation with local utility regulators.

Strong White House coordination

The White House should work closely with key agencies to ensure coordination and eliminate redundancy with respect to federal efforts to advance zero-emission fueling stations. These agencies include the Department of Transportation (DOT) for its partnership with the states to maintain the nation’s major roads and highways, the Department of Energy (DOE) for its ongoing work to deploy alternative-fueling stations, and the Environmental Protection Agency for its regulatory work on clean air.

Gather stakeholder input

The business community recently has adopted a new level of urgency in confronting climate change. To discuss opportunities for building out zero-emission fueling infrastructure, the next administration should harness this energy by convening key stakeholders, including vehicle manufacturers, truck and bus companies, metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, labor organizations, truck-stop owners, and owners of large freight-generating facilities (like hospitals, universities, airports, and convention centers). Opportunities may include the following: partnerships with local utilities to integrate new electric-charging stations with existing electric infrastructure; strategic plans for developing infrastructure tailored to specific routes, applications, and duty cycles in order to minimize refueling costs; and joint efforts that distribute capital expenses of infrastructure construction across private fleets as well as government agencies.

Establish pilot programs and public-private partnerships

Highly traveled truck and/or bus corridors along the National Highway System are natural places to pilot policies and public-private partnerships (PPP) designed to support construction of zero-emission fueling stations. Because there are relatively few examples of real-world experiences and limited opportunities to test emerging zero emission technologies and the strategies for their deployment, these pilots and PPPs will provide immense benefit in sharing information and developing best practices. Immense benefits towards wider adoption will come from understanding the emissions-reduction and fuel-reduction technologies available, the challenges to wider adoption of these technologies, and where these technologies effectively fit diverse geography and efficient supply-chain needs will have. The next administration should partner closely with states and the private sector on initiating and overseeing such pilots and PPPs.

Cumulatively, these activities and authorities will spur development of a nationwide zero emission fueling network because they provide stakeholders with a federal partner in navigating the risks and challenges of this effort while also providing necessary incentives to accelerate stakeholder investment in zero emission technologies and fueling stations. But the benefits of this effort may take years to fully realize, so it is critical that the next administration begin work on this effort on day one to see this through.

Conclusion

Commercial truck and bus volumes will only continue to grow in the future and with it their GHG emissions. While changing CAFÉ standards for commercial trucks and buses will make modest reductions in their GHG emissions, the reality is that the only way to significantly reduce these emissions is to accelerate the deployment and adoption of zero emission technologies. But because these technologies are relatively new and untested, the Federal Government must help stakeholders navigate the challenges and opportunities that these technologies present while also supporting the build out of critical infrastructure like fueling stations to improve confidence in adopting zero emission trucks and buses. The steps outlined in this proposal provide a roadmap to making that a reality.

Summary

In the last two decades, the digital marketplace has transformed the majority of the economy and the daily lives of billions of people worldwide. This transformation has delivered great gains to consumers and unlocked whole new technological opportunities for society to thrive. However, amidst these gains, palpable consumer harms and anti-competitive behaviors have also become clearer, and the bottom-up innovative dynamism that ushered forth the digital marketplace is increasingly under threat.

The next administration should establish a White House Taskforce focused on promoting digital market competition. This executive memo supports its establishment on day one of the next Presidential term.

Summary

The Biden-Harris Administration should create a plan for a public, online platform to connect teachers with college students and recent graduates to serve as tutors for K-12 students. One-on-one tutoring is a proven intervention that improves children’s educational competencies and increases students’ self-confidence. Along with supporting students, this platform could provide needed employment for young adults and enable teachers and students together to produce improved educational outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the closure of more than 124,000 schools with the majority of students now learning online. Meanwhile, millions of college students have lost part-time work or are graduating into a historically difficult job market that does not have positions for them to fill. Just as the New Deal created work programs that both created employment and improved our national landscape, our country requires creative solutions that can meet the urgent needs of our time, can be quickly scaled up using modern technology and can adjust to the changing needs dictated by the cycles of the coronavirus.