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.

Reliable estimates of the impacts and costs of biological invasions are critical to developing credible management, trade and regulatory policies. Worldwide, forests and urban trees provide important ecosystem services as well as economic and social benefits, but are threatened by non-native insects. More than 450 non-native forest insects are established in the United States but estimates of broad-scale economic impacts associated with these species are largely unavailable. We developed a novel modeling approach that maximizes the use of available data, accounts for multiple sources of uncertainty, and provides cost estimates for three major feeding guilds of non-native forest insects. For each guild, we calculated the economic damages for five cost categories and we estimated the probability of future introductions of damaging pests. We found that costs are largely borne by homeowners and municipal governments. Wood- and phloem-boring insects are anticipated to cause the largest economic impacts by annually inducing nearly $1.7 billion in local government expenditures and approximately $830 million in lost residential property values. Given observations of new species, there is a 32% chance that another highly destructive borer species will invade the U.S. in the next 10 years. Our damage estimates provide a crucial but previously missing component of cost-benefit analyses to evaluate policies and management options intended to reduce species introductions. The modeling approach we developed is highly flexible and could be similarly employed to estimate damages in other countries or natural resource sectors.