In an era of growing poverty, homelessness and hunger, it’s amazing how little attention the problem of food waste gets by policymakers.  According to a 2016 report (in the Guardian), roughly 50 percent of all produce in the United States is thrown away—some 60 million tons (or $160 billion) worth of produce annually, an amount constituting “one third of all foodstuffs.”

Wasted food is also the single biggest occupant in American landfills, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

What causes this? A major reason is that food is cheap in the U.S.  In addition, the concern over the appearance of food also drives waste.   Fruits and vegetables, for example, have a tendency to more easily bruise or discolor and that is a big “no no” for American shoppers.  Thus, aesthetically unappealing foods are yanked off supermarket shelves and sent to landfills.  The cost is of this food loss is included in the cost of food that is sold and it is estimated that it costs an average American family an additional $1,600 annually.

Food experts say there is growing awareness that governments cannot effectively fight hunger, or climate change, without reducing food waste. Food waste accounts for about 8% of global climate pollution, more than India or Russia.

Within the US, discarded food is the biggest single component of landfill and incinerators, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Food dumps are a rising source of methane, a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Policymakers admit that they are only beginning to come to grips with the scale of the problem.

But that growing problem may start to change.

A recent documentary (“WASTED! The Story of Food Waste”) was released by well-known chefs Anthony Bourdain and Danny Bowien and presents statistics about America’s food waste crisis, examples of policy changes around the world, opportunities in systems from schools to grocery stores, and stories from other notable chefs such as Dan Barber and Mario Batali.

The film examines the growing attention the issue of food waste is having on policymakers in other countries.  For example, recently France became the first nation in the world to ban supermarkets from wasting food.

In that country, large grocery stores must now donate unsold food to charities, a move that will result in millions more meals for France’s needy.  The law came on the heels of a grassroots movement by shoppers that aims to expand versions of France’s law to all of the European Union.

Previously, French supermarkets could trash still-edible food before it even reached its best-before or sell-by dates. (Such dates don’t indicate when a product will spoil, but rather when it reaches peak quality.)

Supermarkets will also be banned from intentionally destroying discarded food; there had been reports that some French supermarkets had dumped bleach onto throw-away food to prevent others from eating it.  The reason, the stores reportedly said, was to prevent food poisoning.

Other stores secured trash bins to prevent people from taking edible food from them, an increasingly popular practice among France’s unemployed, homeless and poor.  Now all supermarkets over 4,300 square feet in size must hold contracts with nonprofits or food banks.

In turn, those charities must collect, stock and properly redistribute the would-be wasted food, added responsibilities that will require more volunteers and more storage space.

Beyond France, the nation of Italy passed a law to reduce food waste as well, Japan has adopted aggressive measures to curb the wasting of food and South Korea charges residents fees by volume for their food waste, which is separated like recyclables.

New York (both the state and the city), which prides itself on environmental sensitivities and which is home to some of the greatest restaurants in the world, has taken steps toward attacking this problem.  A comprehensive embrace of the growing global movement to curb food waste could dramatically strengthen those efforts.  Done correctly, it could help feed the hungry, curb greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers some money.

A win-win-win.

We live in a representative democracy.  We elect our representatives to go to national, state or local office to represent our interests and solve problems.  Of course, not all problems can be solved and the policy triage of what gets attention and what doesn’t is the decision of the representative based on what his or her constituents want or need.

For years, a huge problem in America was the rapid increase in the numbers of people without health care coverage.  In the 1960s, the nation developed Medicare, health insurance for those over the age of 65 and Medicaid, health insurance for the poor.

In the 1990s, the President and the Congress expanded coverage to help cover all those under the age of 18.  Yet, despite the fact that near-universal coverage existed for those under the age of 18, those over the age of 65, and the poor, the number of Americans without coverage continued to swell, peaking at about 50 million eight years ago.

For the rest of the advanced nations of the world, it was inconceivable that such a situation existed.  Western Europe, Canada, Japan and others have health care coverage for all of their citizens.  As a result, despite spending far more on health care than any other nation on Earth, the United States had more uninsured, incredibly uneven health care quality, and a mediocre life expectancy compared with other developed, wealthy nations.

It was a problem.

Former President Obama and the Congress agreed to legislation to attempt to address that problem.  The solution that they came up with had a modest impact on the spiraling cost of health care, but did cut in half the number of Americans that lacked health insurance.

You could argue with their solution – one which essentially expanded the number of Medicaid-eligible Americans and offered subsidies to help others purchase health insurance – was inadequate to the task, but no one could argue that they did not try.

For years, Republicans argued that they could do it better.  They argued that if they were granted control of the White House and the Congress, they would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better.  We now know that their pledge was pure fiction.  They had no plan to replace the ACA with anything.  All they wanted to do was repeal.

While the majority of the House of Representatives was quite willing to take away coverage from tens of millions of Americans, leaving millions without coverage was something that some Republicans in the Senate could not agree to.  Combined with unanimous Democratic opposition, the effort to repeal the law and take away health insurance coverage from over 20 million Americans ground to a halt.

President Trump, who as a candidate consistently said that he would fix the health insurance system and make it better, has now decided to just make it all worse.  In a stunningly callous series of decisions, the President to doing all he can to deny health insurance for primarily low and moderate income Americans – individuals who currently have coverage will now lose it.

Last week, the President acted to eliminate subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out-of-pocket costs of low-income people.  His decision came on the heels of his plans to make sweeping changes in the nation’s insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer protections for consumers.

Without the subsidies, insurance markets could quickly unravel. Insurers have said they will need much higher premiums, probably 20 percent higher, if the subsidies were ended.

Part of the President’s rationale was that he believed that such payments were illegal, but he has offered no alternative to cover those who will soon be desperately in need of coverage.

And that’s not what elected officials are supposed to do.  They are supposed to make a good effort to solve problems.  They should allocate the nation’s limited resources where needed and apply the best evidence to develop policy solutions.

To strip away people’s health insurance coverage with no alternative is indefensible and will cost an estimated one million Americans dearly.  Without coverage, sick people delay care, which can lead to even more devastating health consequences.  And those serious illnesses can cost those individuals and their families their financial security as well.

Many people will suffer unnecessarily due to the President’s decisions and from the actions of those in Congress who are doing all they can to take away people’s health insurance.   Our elected representatives should care about people, not use them as fodder in the nation’s political wars.

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court began its look into the widespread practice of gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering is the manipulation of political boundaries (for the state legislature, for example) to favor one party.

The practice is now widespread and is designed to pack as many supportive voters together in one district, while diluting the political power of voters who are enrolled in a different political party.  In this way, political party map makers choose their voters, instead of voters choosing their elected officials.

New district lines are drawn at least every ten years in response to population changes identified in the U.S. Census.  The changes in the population require a reapportionment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The House has 435 members and they must be redistributed in districts of exactly the same populations.

In addition, state lawmakers must redesign political boundaries within the state for their legislative bodies to reflect population changes, known as redistricting.

The next Census is scheduled for 2020 and new district lines in New York must be in place for the 2022 elections.

The case before the Court is one related to the district maps of the Wisconsin Assembly.  Republicans took full control of Wisconsin’s government in the 2010 elections and used their power to draw maps that greatly favor them.  The plaintiffs argue that the districts were drawn to be so heavily Republican that they violated the constitutional rights of Democratic voters.  A three-judge appellate federal court panel agreed with the plaintiffs and now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the lower court got the ruling right.

Wisconsin is a state in which support for the major political parties are often close.  In 2012 — a year when Democratic President Barack Obama easily won Wisconsin — Democrats received nearly 52% of the vote in Assembly races, yet took just 39 of the chamber’s 99 seats (40%).

In last year’s election, Republican Donald Trump squeaked out a win over Democrat Hillary Clinton, but the Republicans expanded their control of the Wisconsin Assembly by taking 64 of the 99 seats.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case and the schism among the judges was clear.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned “If you can stack a legislature in this way, what incentive is there for a voter to exercise his vote?  Whether it’s a Democratic district or a Republican district, the result — using this map, the result is preordained in most of the districts.”

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that it is a state responsibility and that most legislatures have been the ones to determine how legislative lines are drawn. The Court’s involvement would dramatically change things, he said.

“The whole point is you’re taking these issues away from democracy and you’re throwing them into the courts.” If the plaintiffs succeed, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to redraw maps that favored one political party over the other. It’s likely, Roberts warned, that the public will view the court’s rulings as partisan.

Perhaps the most incisive question came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor who asked the Wisconsin state attorneys “Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?  How does that help our system of government?”

How the Court rules could also have a broad national impact.  If Wisconsin’s maps are thrown out, states will have to follow new rules when they draw congressional and legislative districts, limiting their abilities to give edges to either party.

Plaintiffs proposed a new test to determine whether maps were unfairly one-sided.  It counts “wasted votes” — that is, any votes beyond those needed to elect a candidate — to determine the “efficiency gap” of a map.  Their plan essentially argues that districts should have closer party enrollments to make them more reflective of the population and more competitive.

New York’s legislative maps were incredibly rigged after the last redistricting – in ways to help Republicans keep control of the Senate despite shrinking party enrollment and further solidify Democratic control of the Assembly.  The Court’s decision could change all of that.

Of course, there is no way to know now how the Court will rule.  All eyes are on Justice Kennedy who may well be the deciding vote.  But if changes occur, it could drastically impact elections across America and may finally end New York’s system of rigged elections.

Despite the nonsense that Americans hear from their national elected leaders, climate change is the single biggest policy challenge we face.  There is no doubt that the planet is heating up and that human activities are the primary driver of global warming.  The burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, are the most significant culprits in those human activities.

Scientists have known that the planet is heating up – even scientists working for oil companies have known that – for decades.  And what is increasingly clear from independent analyses is that the fossil fuel industries have done all they can to undermine the science behind climate change and to use their considerable political clout to install sympathetic lawmakers in key positions of government.

And that effort has largely succeeded in the U.S., but the science keeps building and the impacts of a rapidly warming planet become more and more obvious.  So obvious that other nations are responding with environmental and public health programs to respond to the mounting climate change crisis.

Experts are deeply concerned that we may soon hit a “tipping point” after which little can be done to minimize the accelerating damage caused by global warming.  As a result, the world’s experts are arguing that fossil fuels should be kept in the ground; not developed for burning.

That analysis is what fuels citizen efforts to stop the mining practice known as hydraulic fracturing – or fracking – and to oppose investments in new infrastructure projects to deliver fossil fuels for use, since those projects must operate for years in order to pay off the costs of such building.

Advocates have been pushing for public investments in energy efficiency programs and renewable sources of power, like solar and wind.

But what about cars?  In the United States, nearly 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are generated in the transportation sector (just behind generating electricity), with light duty vehicles producing 60 percent of the sectors greenhouse gases.  In New York, auto and truck emissions are almost double the climate-warming emissions of producing electricity.

Everyone knows this, and countries are starting to act.  China, the world’s largest car market, has been reported by Bloomberg News to be working on a plan to ban the production and sale of vehicles powered only by fossil fuels.  India, France, Britain and Norway have announced their intent to stop the sale of gas and diesel fueled cars.  Germany is considering a plan.  Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Korea and Spain have set official targets for electric car sales. The United States doesn’t have a federal policy, but at least eight states have set goals.

One of those states, California, is one of the largest economies in the world, sixth.  And now there are reports that California is considering joining the growing list of nations.

According to recent reports, the head of California’s Air Resources Board recently suggested the state could move to eventually replace vehicles running on combustion engines in the nation’s largest auto market with electric cars or those running on other renewable energy.  The state has long been a front-runner in setting ambitious future targets for auto makers including sale of zero-emission vehicles.

Cars and trucks represent California’s biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions by far.  In 2015, on-road transportation produced 34 percent of the state’s total emissions, according to the air board’s data.  A full ban on fossil-fuel vehicles in California, which represents 12 percent of all auto sales in the United States, particularly with similar actions in other nations like China and India, would force the auto industry to dump gas and diesel powered cars.

New York State, which prides itself on responding to the climate change crisis, and a major economic force in its own right, should act too.

Of course, it’s ridiculous that states have to act in this way.  A national government relying on the best available science and speaking truthfully to the public would have acted already.  But these are anything but normal times.

Thus, states must act.  California is under the hood looking at its plans to eliminate fossil fuels cars from its roads.  New York should follow suit.

If you promised to do something, but you found out that if you fulfilled your promise tens of millions of people would be hurt, and some may die, would you do it?

That’s the question facing the U.S. Senate Republicans right now.

For years, Republicans across the nation have pledged to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act.  Their promise was a cynical one since they never developed a replacement. Instead, they pandered to their supporters with a promise that was empty.

But they did promise.

Now, Republicans control both Houses of the Congress and the White House.  For their supporters, it is time to deliver on that promise.

But since the pledge was never serious and merely intended to throw “red meat” to a partisan base, the Republican Congressional leadership never had to contemplate the consequences of their failure to develop a meaningful alternative to the Affordable Care Act.

When members of the House of Representatives voted to advance their “repeal and replace” plan, they did so without holding public hearings and without allowing the independent Congressional Budget Office time to analyze their replacement program.

They dramatically limited independent analysis for one reason – they knew that their plan would hurt tens of millions of Americans.  And when the Congressional Budget Office issued its review – after the Republican House members had approved it – the impact became clear: over 20 million Americans would lose their health care coverage.

And losing health care coverage can be devastating: if someone gets sick and has no coverage, they can become deathly ill; and if their family tries to pay for care, they could become bankrupt.

House Republicans knew this, but didn’t care.  A promise was a promise, no matter if it cost people their health, their income, or their lives.

On the Senate side, a similar plan was offered.  It too would have stripped away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans.  It too would have led to needless illnesses, financial ruin, and early deaths that would have resulted from its plan.

But the Senate is a different place. The majority cannot easily steamroll their legislation through.  So the Republican leadership changed the rules to allow their so-called replacement to be considered – again with minimum public input – but the plan failed.  Republicans have a small majority in the Senate and a few members thought that a promise that would hurt millions of people was a bad promise to have made, and worse to fulfill.

Now the Senate Republican leadership is once again trying to advance a plan to strip health insurance away from millions.  This time, there is additional pressure – from wealthy campaign donors.  According to the New York Times, a wealthy Dallas businessman said he had formed a “loose-knit coalition of donors who warned senior Republicans — including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader — that contributions would dry up if Congress did not overhaul the tax code and repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

Why would rich campaign contributors want to strip away benefits from lower income people?  We can only guess that it’s part of some ideology. But we should expect our public officials to stand up to those pressures.

Yet, weak-kneed Senators have advanced a new plan, one that not only takes away coverage from tens of millions of Americans, but is also considered unworkable by experts.  The plan is so flawed and cruel that Republican opposition from governors and a small group of U.S. Senators may doom it.

Why should Americans have to experience this spectacle?  How can a nation which currently spends far more than any nation on its health care, yet has mediocre health outcomes and millions of people still without health insurance – have as its top domestic debate plans to make things worse?  All because elected officials have not been interested in telling the truth.

“Repeal and replace” is a fraud.  It appears that all some donors, activists and the Congressional leadership want is repeal.  They don’t seem to care about who gets hurt.