Brundtland’s definition of sustainability is the ability to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (IISD, 2021). But what if there are no future generations? Social sustainability, the sector of sustainability that foregrounds the well-being and livelihoods of people (and thereby continuation of humanity), is included in definitions within the sustainability field, but less developed in sustainability practice. In an effort to bridge this gap of knowledge, 14 U.S. cities and over 100 sustainability policies were analyzed for their social sustainability performance. An eight-item analytical framework that deals with differing areas of social equity guided the analysis. Results found that most cities’ sustainability departments fell short of truly addressing social sustainability concerns. Out of the eight items, the most frequently addressed were housing security and racial and gender equality whereas few, if any, cities addressed the more specific social concerns of immigration, technology and media, or arts/cultural preservation. Future research is recommended to gain a better understanding of the ways existing cities can improve in this area.

This paper conducts an exploration of the election policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic within the United States. While living through and voting during the real-time events which took place during the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, it soon became evident that there was not enough experience from earlier election emergencies to properly ensure against voter disenfranchisement. Given the scope of the global pandemic and the speed with which policymakers had to act, there was very little time to properly prepare. There was also great contention regarding the legitimacy of election methods proposed to alleviate in-person election concerns, such as mail-in voting. The political battle between those who believed COVID-19 to be a grave concern against those who did not consider COVID-19 to be a legitimate threat towards their livelihoods also affected policymaking decisions. Policymakers were forced into a corner, as they experienced criticism for not enough government action, as well as disapproval on the actual regulation that came to pass. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors led to the decisions which shaped the election policy which occurred as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic during the election year of 2020. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: prior election emergency policy; the development of reactive election policy in March, proactive policy established for the August and November elections; and a review of voter disenfranchisement which occurred due to COVID-19.

Out of all fifty states, Arizona boasts the greatest number of sunny days, which comes as no surprise to its residents. According to a CDC data report, Arizona has an average of nearly 286 total days of sun exposure. This sheer amount of sunlight could lead to the assumption that Arizona is also leading the way in harvesting this solar energy, but that isn’t the case. According to the S.E.I.A (Solar Energies Industries Association), Arizona is the fifth largest solar producer, while California comes in first by a significant lead. What happened in the history of California that caused this disparity in solar production that we see today and should Arizona follow in its footsteps? In this video essay, I consider the historical impact that climate change has had on California that directly led them to adopt environmental policies, such as wildfires, droughts, smog, and sea-level rise. These events threaten California specifically, due to its uniquely high population, geography, and climate, and they will continue to get worse as climate change subsists. Due to the persistent threat that they face, California was forced to pass environmental regulations that ultimately ended up developing them into a leader in environmental protectionism. Arizona, while also facing droughts, high heat, and poor air quality, has had its environmental progress greatly hindered by a lack of cohesive action at the State level. Based on information from the U.S Energy Information Agency, over the past 30 years, Arizona has been one of, if not the highest, carbon-dioxide emitters in the West. For a time there was some political response to this fact, but eventually, its momentum was halted in favor of economic challenges and continually stunted by mixed agendas, which polarized Arizona parties even more and left city governments to deal with climate change on their own. With solar being the cheapest means of clean energy production, it seems unavoidable that it will develop eventually. Solar becoming a topic of such polarization in Arizona makes it much more challenging, as it can only progress with bipartisan support, but climate change is inevitable so discourse has to be the first step towards meaningful change.