Jun 13, 2014 4 min read

Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States as compiled by the Associated Press:

The Obama administration’s new effort to reduce carbon emissions is an important, sensible and necessary step in reducing threat of global warming. It should serve as an example to other polluting nations around the world.

The new policy announced by the Environmental Protection Agency would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Ultimately, the reduction in carbon emissions would be the equivalent of removing two-thirds of the nation’s cars from the roads.

But the proposed EPA policy would not cap those emissions overnight. Instead, the policy has built-in flexibility to allow states to devise their own plans for phasing in reductions over the next 15 years.

The EPA’s plan is a crucial first step in moving from a fossil-fuel based economy to one more reliant on clean, renewable energy. It’s not only something the American people should accept; it’s what they should demand.

The emerging picture of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was exchanged for five prisoners held at the U.S. prison in Guantánamo, indicates he’s no hero, no all-American G.I. Joe, and might even be a deserter.

But what no one disputes is that he was an American soldier held by the enemy, and that alone justifies the U.S. effort to bring him home.

That is what the armed forces do. It’s part of unwritten but fundamental code of solidarity in the uniformed services. No one is left behind, and no one should seek, or offer, apologies for bringing soldiers home.

Before rushing to judgment, however, the murky details of the Bergdahl incident must be investigated. Republicans in Congress have been so eager to turn any perceived weakness or misstep by the administration into a scandal that it’s hard to take them seriously when they once again cry wolf.

Whatever an investigation turns up, it does not alter the basic facts of Bergdahl’s detention, nor the fact that bringing a captured soldier back to his family was the correct decision.

When the first World Cup 2014 match kicked off Thursday in Sao Paulo, Brazil, an estimated 1 billion people around the world were watching. Billions more are expected to tune in for rest of the matches in new or refurbished stadiums in Rio de Janeiro and other cities around the country on which the government spent more than the equivalent of U.S. $11 billion.

That’s an astonishing amount of money, even for a growing economic power like Brazil. And for many in this South American country with a long love affair with fútbol, not to mention more than its share of World Cup victories, it’s just too much.

The ballooning cost of the infrastructure that will be hardly used by Brazilians has become the ignition point for a seething discontent throughout the country over corruption and lack of spending on public services.

Brazilian officials reasoned that the stadiums can be used for the 2016 Olympic Games planned for this country, despite the data from the site of the last World Cup in South Africa that say all the hoped-for economic benefits didn’t materialize. They can also point to the jobs the project brings in, plus the economic boost from an influx of millions of tourist from around the world paying for hotel, transportation, food, fun and souvenirs.

But tell that to the vast majority who feel the economic boom is leaving them behind and only widening the gap between rich and poor, according to a Pew Global survey released last week.

It’s a message that is resonating across the globe.