Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Wealth Tax: A Simplistic Answer to Complex Problems
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 19 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
Wealth Tax: A Simplistic Answer to Complex Problems
A wealth tax would be immoral and impractical.
By Kristian Guise
Recently, great interest has been paid to ideas of a British wealth tax. Britain's struggling finances have caused eyewatering tax rises and seen the rise of the Green Party whose policy is to tax wealth.
A wealth tax is a direct tax on the value of an individual's total net assets at a certain point in time. These assets include vehicles, jewelry, artwork/antiques,
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 19 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
Wealth Tax: A Simplistic Answer to Complex Problems
A wealth tax would be immoral and impractical.
By Kristian Guise
Recently, great interest has been paid to ideas of a British wealth tax. Britain's struggling finances have caused eyewatering tax rises and seen the rise of the Green Party whose policy is to tax wealth.
A wealth tax is a direct tax on the value of an individual's total net assets at a certain point in time. These assets include vehicles, jewelry, artwork/antiques,savings/investments, cash, property, intellectual property, and businesses. Such a tax would be catastrophic, as I will show.
Less Revenue Generated Than Predicted
Proponents argue that a wealth tax would deliver PS10-25 billion to the government.
The promise of these revenues is based on flawed international comparisons. Current wealth taxes (of which there are only four in the worldwhich says much about their credibility) have "low rates, wide exemptions and [are] applied broadly" while " UK proposals are the opposite." Therefore, more drastic UK measures make it less likely to recover the promised revenues due to the effect of "capital flight," which is the outflow of wealthy individuals and their assets. This makes a comparison with the UK unfair.
Existing wealth taxes produce limited revenue. For example, the Spanish central government's Solidarity Tax aimed to " collect over EUR 1.5 billion in 2023," but only managed 40% of this (EUR 0.6 billion).
Wealth taxes are over-reliant upon the few, making the tax superficially attractive to money-hungry legislators, but the tax revenue is unstable. A pseudo-wealth tax was proposed in the State of Washington of 1% on assets over $250 million, but once this was announced/expected, Jeff Bezos moved himself and many of his assets to Florida, costing Washington State nearly 45% ($1.44 billion) of the predicted $3.2 billion/year revenue. The people with the highest assets are also highly mobile; threatened with a wealth tax, many will just leave.
Applying the tax itself also has high administrative costs. Valuing assets such as artwork, private businesses, and intellectual property presents challenges. The UK's Wealth Tax Commission (2020) alone estimated the up-front cost of creating this new administrative apparatus to be PS600 million, which is 10% of HMRC's "current cost of running." Some argue for applying " the same rules and procedures for valuing assets " used in calculating capital gains and inheritance taxes. Yet valuation principles and their application vary widely with significant elements of valuer-discretion, enabling multiple legal challenges. Even former Labour Chancellor Denis Healey concluded that wealth taxes do not " yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle."
Wealth Taxes Increase Poverty
The main argument for wealth taxes is to " redress the glaring inequality in the distribution of wealth in Britain today." Yet the opposite would happen with the economic situation of all British citizens worsening because "wealth taxes disincentivise entrepreneurship, leading to less innovation and suppress long-term growth," reduce wages, "destroy jobs," and reduce the stock of capital. As a result, all " income groups are worse off under a wealth tax due to decreased economic activity." Margaret Thatcher herself highlighted this damning effect in November 1990 in response to an MP at PMQs : "He would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."
One contemporary wealth tax proposal was suggested by French economist Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the Twenty First Century, where he proposed various wealth taxes between 0.5-2% on differing levels of wealth. This proposal was reviewed by the Tax Foundation (a British think tank) who found that "the effect of a potential version of Piketty's wealth tax on the US economy... would be devastating... Over a 10-year period, wages would be 5.2% lower, 1.12 million jobs would be lost, and the capital stock would be 16.5% lower," which would cause "a loss of USD 1 trillion," with the wealth tax revenue generating "only USD 63 million." Thus, " all social classes, including the poorest, would be affected by the wealth tax due to the reduction in economic activity." In short, a wealth tax would damage every British citizen's finances while failing to reduce inequality.
Legal Challenges
Legal challenges would become endless as wealthy taxpayers dispute valuations. This has already happened in several European countries (e.g., Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands). The Dutch wealth tax was declared unconstitutional by their Supreme Court in 2021 and 2024 for the same reasons: it is " discriminatory," and it breaches European Law on property rights.
Legal challenges create significant costs, making net wealth tax revenue less, whilst generating strong debate about whether wealth taxes actually create the fairer society wealth taxes purport to achieve.
Wealth Taxes Are Anti-Growth
A wealth taxes is anti-growth (the very thing the incumbent UK government wishes to avoid) because it " makes savings and investments less attractive for UK investors and business-owners," with many likely to opt for "capital flight" or increased expenditure. The latter is bad because consumption has only short-term economic benefits while saving and investing have long-term benefits: increasing capital for investment through putting money in banks which is lent to businesses to finance new projects.
Many argue that "capital flight" is unlikely, some quoting a report published in 2025 by Tax Justice Network which found that the 9,500 millionaires reported to have left the country " represented 0.3% of the UK's 3.06 million [millionaires]." Here are two examples of "capital flight." Firstly, the Wealth Tax Commission found that many ultra-wealthy individuals were " likely to leave or move their assets " abroad. Secondly, " after a 1% increase in Norway's wealth tax, many high-net-worth individuals left the country."
Misconceptions About Public Support
Public support for wealth taxes is a misconception.
Firstly, people support wealth taxes because they believe that wealthy people do not pay their fair share of taxes. This is unfair, given that around "60% of income tax revenue comes from 10% of earners, and 30% from the top 1%."
Second, the public are often provided with no context or information about the trade-offs (e.g., cost of implementation) of a wealth tax. Research shows that the public support any tax measure if there are no downsides, but once the downsides are presented, the support for a tax declines, in some cases substantially.
Conclusion
A wealth tax would devastate the UK economy. It is deeply worrying that the Green Party advocates so strongly for such a tax. This makes the Green Party a threat to the well-being of our economy, and I urge all not to fall for their alluring trap.
What is the alternative? The answer is reforming capital gains, income, or inheritance tax. By reform we not only generate more revenue but create a fairer tax system and a fairer society.
I end with this phrase by Iain MacLeod (former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons): " The socialists can scheme their schemes, and the liberals can dream their dreams, but we, at least, have work to do."
* * *
Kristian Guise is an undergraduate studying Modern History and Politics at the University of Southampton, UK.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/wealth-tax-a-simplistic-answer-to-complex-problems/
VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university's 'land acknowledgment' on syllabus
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 19 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university's 'land acknowledgment' on syllabus
*
* Universities can't encourage professors to wade into controversial subjects, then punish professors for disagreeing with the administration
* Court: "Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor."
SEATTLE, Dec. 19, 2025
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Dec. 19 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university's 'land acknowledgment' on syllabus
*
* Universities can't encourage professors to wade into controversial subjects, then punish professors for disagreeing with the administration
* Court: "Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor."
SEATTLE, Dec. 19, 2025The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today delivered a decisive victory for the First Amendment rights of public university faculty in Reges v. Cauce. Reversing a federal district court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit held University of Washington officials violated the First Amendment when they punished Professor Stuart Reges for substituting his satirical take on the university's preferred "land acknowledgment" statement on his syllabus.
On Dec. 8, 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and on Jan. 3, 2022, he parodied UW's model statement in his syllabus: "I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington." Reges's statement was a nod to John Locke's philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor.
COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA USE
Represented by FIRE, Reges filed a First Amendment lawsuit in July 2022 challenging the university's actions, which included a months-long "harassment" investigation. University officials created a competing class, so students wouldn't have to take a computer science class from someone who didn't parrot the university's preferred opinions.
"Today's opinion is a resounding victory for Professor Stuart Reges and the First Amendment rights of public university faculty," said FIRE attorney Gabe Walters. "The Ninth Circuit agreed with what FIRE has said from the beginning: Universities can't force professors to parrot an institution's preferred political views under pain of punishment."
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress stated : "A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university's model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community. Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor's views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university's actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights."
That's exactly right.
"Today's opinion recognizes that sometimes, 'exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself,'" said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. "As we always say at FIRE: If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation's campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.
CONTACT:
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-court-vindicates-professor-investigated-parodying-universitys-land-acknowledgment
Utah Mechanics Eject Operating Engineers Union Bosses After Landslide Decertification Vote Results
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 19 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Utah Mechanics Eject Operating Engineers Union Bosses After Landslide Decertification Vote Results
National Labor Board certifies election outcome
*
Salt Lake City, UT (December 19, 2025) - Employees of Smith Power Products, Inc are free from the hold of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 union officials after an overwhelming majority of the units 58 workers voted to "decertify" the union in a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor Relations
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 19 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Utah Mechanics Eject Operating Engineers Union Bosses After Landslide Decertification Vote Results
National Labor Board certifies election outcome
*
Salt Lake City, UT (December 19, 2025) - Employees of Smith Power Products, Inc are free from the hold of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 union officials after an overwhelming majority of the units 58 workers voted to "decertify" the union in a secret ballot election administered by the National Labor RelationsBoard (NLRB).
NLRB Region 27 certified the election results, officially ending Operating Engineers officials' exclusive monopoly "representation" of the Smith Power Products employees. The decertification effort was spearheaded by Smith Power Products employee Bryce Runia, who filed his petition with the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, a task that includes administering votes to install (or "certify") and remove (or "decertify") unions in workplaces.
The election took place among all full-time employees employed in the Parts and Service Department of the Smith Power Products, Salt Lake City, Utah, facility. Seventy percent of the workers' votes were cast against the continued presence of Operating Engineers union officials in the workplace.
Utah is one of the 26 states with Right to Work protections that safeguard workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. Yet, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, even those who oppose the union. The workers' decertification victory removes the union officials' monopoly bargaining powers over the employees.
"The Foundation is pleased to have assisted Mr. Runia and his colleagues in exercising their right to remove an unwanted union from their workplace," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "This case serves as another reminder that, in addition to the vast majority of workers who polls show are happily non-union, there are numerous other employees in Utah and across America who are currently trapped in a union against their will."
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Dec 19, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/utah-operating-engineers-decertified-12192025/
TPPF Submits Comments Supporting Proposed Endangered Species Act Regulations
AUSTIN, Texas, Dec. 19 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Submits Comments Supporting Proposed Endangered Species Act Regulations
*
AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted comments in connection with rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The proposed rules were originally enacted during the first Trump Administration and were later undone during the Biden Administration. A key change would remove
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Dec. 19 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Submits Comments Supporting Proposed Endangered Species Act Regulations
*
AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted comments in connection with rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The proposed rules were originally enacted during the first Trump Administration and were later undone during the Biden Administration. A key change would removethe so-called "blanket rule" that applies the same strict rules to threatened species that the legislature intended to apply to endangered species. The legislature envisioned encouraging landowners to prevent threatened species from becoming endangered (and subject to more strict rules), incentivizing landowners to take measures to rehabilitate species on their land. By erasing any distinction between endangered and threatened species, this misguided policy contravenes not only the Endangered Species Act but also the Constitution of the United States.
Additional comments focus on interagency cooperation and how economic, national security, and other relevant impacts must be considered before determining whether a piece of land should be excluded from critical habitat designation. A consistent theme of constitutional concern runs through all of TPPF's comments, with the Foundation reminding the Agencies to be conscious of their limited power under the Commerce Clause. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court stated that the Endangered Species Act requires protection of species 'at any cost,' which Congress never intended. That Supreme Court ruling caused decades of government overreach that has needlessly strewn havoc over property rights, economic development, and national security considerations.
"The proposed rules recognize that it is time to dispose of that wrong-headed approach, and the Agencies are on a firm legal footing to do so," said TPPF Senior Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich, "For decades, property owners have been burdened with overzealous regulators who have unintelligently championed the 'at any cost' doctrine of species protection. We believe the repeal of the blanket rule and the promulgation of the related rules will bring welcome regulatory relief to property owners who should be permitted to exercise their constitutional rights over their own properties."
TPPF Attorney Laura Beth Latimer added, "In an overregulated, over-criminalized world, any steps we can take toward restoring individual liberty are worth their weight in gold."
To read the comments, click here, here, and here.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-submits-comments-supporting-proposed-endangered-species-act-regulations
Sunsetting Section 230 Would Harm Platforms, Users, and the Digital Economy
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Sunsetting Section 230 Would Harm Platforms, Users, and the Digital Economy
*
WASHINGTONFollowing the introduction of the Sunset Section 230 Act by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, issued the following statement from Senior Policy Manager Ash Johnson:
Policymakers have blamed Section 230 for any number of
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Sunsetting Section 230 Would Harm Platforms, Users, and the Digital Economy
*
WASHINGTONFollowing the introduction of the Sunset Section 230 Act by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, issued the following statement from Senior Policy Manager Ash Johnson:
Policymakers have blamed Section 230 for any number ofonline problems, and while it may not be perfect, eliminating this law would do much more harm than good.
The main result of sunsetting Section 230 would be an influx of frivolous lawsuits against online services that host user-generated content. Online services would likely win most of these lawsuits because their content moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment. But without Section 230, they would have to go through an expensive litigation process that would take resources away from innovation, force some online services to start charging users to offset costs, and put online services out of business entirely.
In its current form, Section 230 ensures that neither users nor websites are liable for content created by others. It has enabled a diverse Internet ecosystem, allowing online services to moderate content in a way that best suits their needs and the needs of their users. Sunsetting Section 230 would strip online services of vital liability protections, create obstacles to innovation, and make the Internet a worse place for the average user.
Contact: Nicole Hinojosa, press@itif.org
***
Original text here: https://itif.org/publications/publications/2025/12/19/sunsetting-section-230-would-harm-platforms-users-and-the-digital-economy/
Lifting Community Solutions: Rise Challenge Finalists Share Their Journeys
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 [Category: Economics] -- Prosperity Now (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development) posted the following news release:
* * *
Lifting Community Solutions: Rise Challenge Finalists Share Their Journeys
*
At Prosperity Now, the Rise Challenge identifies and elevates innovators building community-centered solutions that advance economic opportunity. This year's finalists reflect the creativity and determination emerging from communities across the country. Three leadersworking to support homeowners in Philadelphia, entrepreneurs in Birmingham, and community lenders
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 [Category: Economics] -- Prosperity Now (formerly the Corporation for Enterprise Development) posted the following news release:
* * *
Lifting Community Solutions: Rise Challenge Finalists Share Their Journeys
*
At Prosperity Now, the Rise Challenge identifies and elevates innovators building community-centered solutions that advance economic opportunity. This year's finalists reflect the creativity and determination emerging from communities across the country. Three leadersworking to support homeowners in Philadelphia, entrepreneurs in Birmingham, and community lendersnationwideshared what drives their work and what this recognition means for the people they serve.
The 2025 Rise Challenge finalists presented their work at the Prosperity Summit in Washington, DC, in October, before a panel of judges with experience in housing, small business, and community finance. Their efforts highlight practical ideas shaped by real-world conditions and long-term needs.
Building Sustainable Homeownership with Keepingly
Daniel Smith, founder and CEO of Keepingly, was drawn to the Rise Challenge because it reflects the kind of challenges his team works on every day.
"Homeownership is one of the most powerful tools for economic opportunity, but only when families have the knowledge, transparency, and systems to sustain it over time."
Being selected as a finalist to be both validating and energizing.
"It affirms that our work helping families track, manage, and protect their homes resonates beyond our team and aligns closely with Prosperity Now's mission."
For Philadelphiawhere Keepingly recently established its headquartersthis recognition highlights how technology can better understand and protect the value they built in their homes, an increasingly important concern in many cities.
Keepingly's goal is to ensure families do not lose hard-earned equity simply because they lack clear information or accessible tools. Breaking into the traditional housing sector as a mission-driven tech company required persistence, trust-building, and securing values-aligned capital.
"Each step has reaffirmed that what we're building mattersnot just as a company, but as a broader effort to help families maintain stability and strengthen communities."
Reimagining Entrepreneurial Access in Birmingham with Network Navigator
Nalia Jackson, founder of Network Navigator, shared that the Rise Challenge offered an opportunity to elevate solutions shaped by local experience, particularly for small business owners navigating fragmented support environments.
" I see every day how much potential exists in entrepreneurs who simply are not connected to the right information, the right people, or the right pathways."
Network Navigator's Capital Connect was created to make information and connections easier to navigate and more visible for entrepreneurs.
Being named a finalist "carries deep meaning," Nalia said.
"It tells our entrepreneurs that their experiences matter. It validates their challenges and their dreams, and it shows that solutions rooted in community can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with national innovations."
The recognition brings momentum to Birmingham's entrepreneurial community at a time when coordination and trust remain essential.
Nalia's aspiration is to make entrepreneurship feel more accessible and navigable for people who often lack clear information or connections. Early challenges included limited visibility, constrained resources, and navigating a highly fragmented environment.
"Those challenges sharpened my purpose and strengthened our commitment to meeting people where they are."
Expanding Access to Capital Nationwide with Parlay
The winner of this year's Rise Challenge was Parlay Finance. Parlay was founded on the belief that improving access to capital for small business owners, particularly through community lenders, plays an important role in supporting local economies.
With deep experience working alongside Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), the Rise Challenge aligned closely with Parlay's focus.
"We are thrilled to win the 2025 Rise Challenge and look forward to working with Prosperity Next to empower CDFIs with scalable AI-powered technical assistance for small businesses across the country," said Alex McLeod, co-founder and CEO of Parlay Finance.
"The Prosperity Now team did a tremendous job leading such a service-oriented effort, and we were honored to participate," said Jay Long, co-founder and COO of Parlay.
Winning the competition provides momentum to grow Parlay's team, deepen its technology, and expand relationships with lenders across the country.
" This collaboration gives us the opportunity to challenge our assumptions, refine our strategy, and build transformational tools with partners who share our commitment to economic opportunity."
Parlay equips community lenders with tools that support operational efficiency and more consistent credit assessment, helping lenders serve more small businesses while staying true to their purpose. Building a company around that goal required earning trust in a sector shaped by long-standing practices.
"We created a completely new category of banking technology, so there was no playbook."
What continues to ground the work, Jay shared, is the team itself.
" Every member of Parlay's founding team is either a military veteran or a military spouse. We view entrepreneurship as continued servicea different uniform, but the same commitment to mission and community."
Elevating Community-Led Solutions
From sustaining homeownership to improving entrepreneurial access to strengthening community lending, this year's Rise Challenge finalists demonstrate how practical solutions grow from lived experience and real conditions. Prosperity Now is proud to identify and elevate this work and to share how these ideas are taking shape across communities.
***
Original text here: https://www.prosperitynow.org/news-and-insights/lifting-community-solutions-rise-challenge-finalists-share-their-journeys
Conservation Law Foundation: Rhode Island Unveils 2025 Climate Action Strategy
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 19 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Rhode Island Unveils 2025 Climate Action Strategy
CLF looking toward Governor's implementation
*
(Providence, RI) - Rhode Island has just approved its 2025 Climate Action Strategy, which is intended to outline a plan for slashing carbon pollution as required by the state's Act on Climate law. CLF released the following statement in response.
"The Climate Action Strategy details how far Rhode Island must go to slash climate-warming emissions, but most of its proposals are a continuation
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 19 -- The Conservation Law Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Rhode Island Unveils 2025 Climate Action Strategy
CLF looking toward Governor's implementation
*
(Providence, RI) - Rhode Island has just approved its 2025 Climate Action Strategy, which is intended to outline a plan for slashing carbon pollution as required by the state's Act on Climate law. CLF released the following statement in response.
"The Climate Action Strategy details how far Rhode Island must go to slash climate-warming emissions, but most of its proposals are a continuationof business as usual. That is not enough," said Darrell Brown, CLF's Vice President for Rhode Island. "We need a clear plan and commitment from our state agencies to real solutions that give Rhode Island a shot at success. Climate change isn't waiting, so neither can we. I look forward to seeing how Governor McKee and the legislature create measurable and actionable next steps to implement the strategy in the new year."
Now that Rhode Island's Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council has approved the strategy, it will inform the state's upcoming legislative session and provide guidance to the Governor and executive agencies on the steps they need to take to meet Rhode Island's climate commitments.
CLF experts are available for comment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clf.org/newsroom/rhode-island-unveils-2025-climate-action-strategy/
