Under gray skies, Sean Brunton dips his brush into a pot of white paint in front of a cottage that abuts the courtyard of a 15th-century church. He’s trying to finish the job before it rains. But he takes a moment to reflect on the tumult of the past two weeks, from the arrival of a new prime minister to the death of Britain’s longest-serving monarch. 

“She had a good innings,” he says, using a cricketing metaphor, of Queen Elizabeth II, who ascended the throne in 1952.

As for Liz Truss, whom the queen appointed as prime minister two days before her death, he’s less sure of her political longevity, given the challenges she and the country face – war in Ukraine, double-digit inflation, surging energy bills, and rolling strikes by public-sector workers. 

“It’s a poisoned chalice, whoever gets to be prime minister in this country,” Mr. Brunton says. 

Up and down the United Kingdom, as mourning for Queen Elizabeth reached its apex with Monday’s royal funeral, that sense of uncertainty hung heavy. Britain has a new monarch, King Charles III, who can match neither his mother’s popularity nor her place in the collective memory of a nostalgia-prone country.

Ms. Truss, as head of government, must try to restore the ruling Conservative Party’s authority after her scandal-riddled predecessor Boris Johnson was forced to resign. Both are taking up their new posts in the shadow of a royal succession that few Britons have experienced.

“People genuinely feel emotionally discombobulated” by Elizabeth’s death, says Steven Fielding, a political historian and professor emeritus at Nottingham University. Though the monarch’s role in the country’s day-to-day affairs was only symbolic, “that sense of reassurance, whether real or not, that someone cares about them, has gone,” he says. 

Simon Montlake/The Christian Science Monitor

House painter Sean Brunton adds caulking to a house in Royal Wootton Bassett, England, on Sept. 13, 2022. Mr. Brunton, who grew up in Northern Ireland and supports the ruling Conservative Party, mourns the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who died on Sept. 8. He's concerned about political stability under Britain's new prime minister, Liz Truss.

At the same time, a sense of continuity is also palpable.

Within hours of the queen’s death, Charles, as heir to the throne, was proclaimed king. Days of televised pageantry – of his succession; leading the mourning in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; hosting a reception in Buckingham Palace for international guests; and following his mother’s coffin into Westminster Abbey – have burnished the image of King Charles, both as a grieving son and sovereign. 

Ms. Truss, though Britain’s fourth prime minister in six years, nonetheless has a solid majority in Parliament to pass laws, and is not required to call an election for two years. Although Brexit and its aftermath deeply divided the British public and its political class, nobody is seriously questioning the electoral system or refusing to accept defeat. Partisanship has not corroded the machinery of democracy, nor public trust in the ballot box.

Moreover, Charles is a monarch with strictly circumscribed powers. The head that wears the crown may lie uneasy, in William Shakespeare’s words, but the responsibility of governing lies squarely with Britain’s elected politicians. It is they, who, once the royal spectacle ends, will have to grapple with public frustration at the rising cost of living, particularly of heating homes and filling gas tanks.

“This is new, uncharted territory for many people … the threat of not being able to pay for energy bills. It’s a picture of instability and uncertainty,” says Professor Fielding. 

Ms. Truss has seen a bump in her approval ratings since taking office. But that’s probably a knee-jerk reaction to a week of tumult when the head of government represents certainty, says Andy Maciver, a political columnist and lobbyist in Edinburgh.

“This is all going to go away very soon,” he says. “People are starting to think about putting their heating on, and they’re going to worry.” 

How to be styled “royal”

A town of 12,000 in western England, Royal Wootton Bassett lies a short drive from the Cotswolds, a piece of picture-postcard English countryside. It earned its prefix – it is one of only three towns with the right to call itself “royal” – in a sign of the close association between the English crown and the military: The late queen, King Charles, and his two sons all served in the armed forces.

For several years, Britain’s Royal Air Force repatriated the bodies of U.K. service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan via a nearby air base. When the first cortege passed through Wootton Bassett, a local councilor led an impromptu tribute that then became a fixture of repatriations as veterans, family members, and others lined the street to pay their respects. 

Hearses would slow down as they passed the silent crowd, remembers Steve Bucknell, the town’s former mayor. The church bells tolled. Even the dogs stopped barking. Then people would quietly drift away. 

In 2011, when the repatriation flights were rerouted, ending the tradition, the queen issued a decree on “the thirty first day of August in the sixtieth year of Our Reign” that the town could “henceforth be called and styled ROYAL WOOTTON BASSETT.”  

Like others here, Mr. Bucknell, a Conservative councilor, takes pride in this designation. “We’re a very ordinary town,” he insists. “We just had an opportunity to do something extraordinary.” 

Wootton Bassett is an affluent place, but it still has pockets of deprivation says the Rev. Jane Curtis, the vicar of St. Bartholomew’s church, which hosts a weekly food bank. “We’re a town of two halves,” she says. 

Passing the church is Dave Bennett, a driver for Britain’s Royal Mail, as the postal service is called. Postal drivers went on strike this summer for higher pay and had planned further action that was postponed by the queen’s death. Mr. Bennett says he’s not a royalist, but had respect for Queen Elizabeth. Now he’s more focused on the cost of living that is outpacing his pay packet. 

“This country is struggling, big-style,” he says. “Everything is going up. Food is going up. Wages are not going up for anyone.” 

In fact, private-sector wages have risen this year, but still lag behind inflation. The squeeze on real earnings is most acute among public-sector workers who are flexing their collective muscles. Train drivers and trash collectors have already downed tools; nurses are likely to follow, at a time when the National Health Service is struggling to tackle a pandemic backlog of procedures.

Emilio Morenatti/Reuters

Britain's King Charles III walks with Princess Anne, Prince Harry, and Prince Andrew behind the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II as it is pulled on a gun carriage through the streets of London following her funeral service at Westminster Abbey, Sept. 19, 2022. The queen, who died on Sept. 8, will be buried at Windsor alongside her late husband, Prince Philip, who died last year.

A union under stress

At the start of the pandemic, after Britain first imposed a national lockdown, Queen Elizabeth made a televised address that invoked a wartime spirit of national solidarity and resolve. 

“I hope in the years to come everyone will be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge. And those who come after us will say that the Britons of this generation were as strong as any,” she said. 

King Charles is unlikely to weigh in on the country’s current economic woes, nor should he attempt to, given that the monarch must be apolitical, says Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University in London. “Covid was seen as an act of God,” he explains. “I don’t think the economic situation is viewed in the same way.” 

Calling on the nation to make sacrifices, such as turning down the thermostat, could also be tricky for a king whose family lives in luxury and holds vast and largely untaxed wealth. Polls show that while the queen was broadly popular, young people are skeptical of the monarchy and its role. Analysts say republican ideas could spread more widely after Elizabeth’s death, though few expect a thousand years of near-unbroken monarchical rule to end any time soon. 

While Elizabeth belonged firmly to a bygone age of deference and discretion, Charles has often publicly expressed strong opinions in favor of environmental causes, organic farming, and human-scale urban planning. He has also said that as sovereign he would not be so “stupid” as to meddle in government policy, as he has been accused of doing in the past. 

But even if Charles earns more public respect over time, he simply won’t have the same claim on national loyalties that Elizabeth accrued and could draw on when she addressed the nation, says David Edgerton, a professor of history at King’s College London. 

“He won’t carry in his person the affection built up over many years for the queen, and through the queen for the institution of the monarchy,” he says. “Nor, of course, will he be a figure that evokes a [shared] past and particularly the real and mythological Second World War.” 

As queen, Elizabeth presided over the dissolution of what remained of Britain’s empire, though she was still the head of state in 15 countries, including Australia and Canada. For Charles, the candidates for dissolution may lie closer to home, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

Scotland voted in a 2014 referendum to stay in the U.K. But the 2016 “yes” vote on Brexit, which Scots opposed, helped to rekindle the independence movement led by the Scottish National Party (SNP), which controls the devolved government and is pressing for a second referendum.

In Northern Ireland, Brexit has also proved destabilizing, introducing trade rules that the British government is now trying to overturn.  

Under the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement, which ended three decades of violence between Catholic and Protestant paramilitary groups, Northern Ireland’s population of 2 million has the right to hold a referendum on whether or not to stay in the U.K. In May, Sinn Fein, the former political wing of the Irish Republican Army, won the largest bloc of seats in the province’s parliament. Polls suggest that young people are open to reuniting with a prosperous and liberal Ireland. 

Last week, Charles visited Northern Ireland and Scotland, but the extent of his potential role in shoring up the union with either country is unclear, since the forces at work are political and revolve around Brexit, says Professor Edgerton, author of “The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History.”

“It’s important not to exaggerate the role of the monarch or monarchy. There are very powerful fissiparous tendencies in the United Kingdom which have been radically strengthened by Brexit,” he says. 

It’s also important to distinguish between Scottish independence and anti-monarchism, says Mr. Maciver, the Scottish political analyst who identifies as a unionist. When SNP leaders greeted Charles last week and sang “God Save the King,” they weren’t signaling any change in their goals, since they advocate an independent Scotland with the British monarch as head of state, as in Canada. 

“They’re not republicans. They’re independence-supporting monarchists,” he says. 

All turning out for the best?

Back in Royal Wootton Bassett, Councilor Bucknell is full of praise for Charles, whom he has met; royal town officials receive invitations to royal garden parties. “I think he’s going to be a really great king,” he says. 

At the church, Chrissy Reeves lights a candle and signs the memorial book for Elizabeth. (The English monarch is also head of the Church of England.) The retired caregiver was in tears when she arrived, but seems comforted by her act of remembrance. “She’s done so much for us and for the country,” she says. 

Ms. Reeves lives on a pension. She has cut back on spending and rarely takes holidays; her main hobby is gardening. As for the political turnover and economic turmoil, she takes comfort from reading history, another of her hobbies. 

“There are many times when everything seems to be in flux and change,” she says. “It usually turns out for the best in the end.” 

Ray Ewing/Vineyard Gazette/AP

Immigrants gather with their belongings outside St. Andrews Episcopal Church, Sept. 14, 2022, in Edgartown, Massachusetts, on Martha's Vineyard. Earlier that day, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis flew two planes of immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, escalating a tactic by Republican governors to draw attention to what they consider to be the Biden administration's failed border policies.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is having a “moment.” The Florida Republican’s latest high-profile action – flying migrants from Texas to the wealthy, liberal resort island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts – captured national attention and added yet more buzz to an expected 2024 presidential bid. 

To liberals, last week’s maneuver was a cruel stunt that exploited desperate human beings by turning them into political pawns. 

To conservatives, Governor DeSantis’ move was a stroke of political genius, highlighting the waves of migrants crossing the southern border and supercharging the immigration issue ahead of November’s midterm elections. 

Over the weekend, Mr. DeSantis received a standing ovation at an event for conservatives in Kansas. And former President Donald Trump, a fellow Floridian who promoted Mr. DeSantis’ 2018 run for the governorship, is reportedly fuming that his mentee has grabbed the media spotlight on one of his signature issues.

But even as Mr. DeSantis shows what he’s learned from Mr. Trump, he’s also doing things differently – for better or worse.

“Personally, I see it as showboating,” says a conservative political strategist, speaking on background to preserve his relationship with both men. “But it’s great for national fundraising, and it raises DeSantis’ presidential profile.” 

Rebecca Blackwell/AP

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a press conference to announce expanded toll relief for Florida commuters, Sept. 7, 2022, in Miami. He is expected to run for president in 2024.

Mr. DeSantis, who is currently running for reelection, believes he’s hit on something. Last week, he told reporters to expect more such flights to “sanctuary communities” – localities that won’t turn migrants without legal status over to immigration authorities. The governor said he has $12 million designated by the Florida Legislature to transport migrants to “sanctuary destinations.” Records show the Martha’s Vineyard flights cost $615,000. 

To some, the calculated way in which Mr. DeSantis planned and orchestrated those flights shows a key difference between him and Mr. Trump, who is known for operating more on instinct.

“DeSantis is much more strategic,” says Susan MacManus, a professor emerita at the University of South Florida and veteran political observer. “He looks carefully at a big issue and sees what needs more attention, from his party’s and his own ideological perspective. Then he picks a location and timing to maximize media attention.”

In their dealings with reporters, Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis have some similarities but also differ in key ways. Both men express antipathy toward the news media – Mr. Trump famously referred to the press as “the enemy of the people” – and use reporters as foils to score political points. Both men also know how to play to the cameras. 

But their overall media relations strategies are quite different. For all his complaints, Mr. Trump actually seems to enjoy sparring with reporters, and as president carried on the tradition of having the press “pool” travel with him both in Washington and on the road. Mr. DeSantis makes covering his administration much more difficult – at least for the mainstream media. The Florida governor doesn’t release his daily schedule until the end of the day, and while press conferences are usually announced a few hours in advance, they can be anywhere in the state. 

“He does not like questions,” says Aubrey Jewett, a political scientist at the University of Central Florida. “I don’t know how much he believes he’s being treated unfairly [by reporters] and how much is a political act. But he seems to believe it’s true.”

The big exception is Fox News, whose favorable coverage helped propel Mr. DeSantis to the governorship four years ago, while bringing him to Mr. Trump’s attention. Today, some media observers have noted that Fox seems to be backing away from Mr. Trump, while Mr. DeSantis is still a regular on the network. 

But while some see Mr. DeSantis as a younger, savvier version of the former president, others say he lacks the showmanship and charisma that made the reality TV star such a hit with crowds. 

Mr. Trump is much more of a “people person,” say conservative operatives who know both men. Mr. DeSantis has made notable improvements delivering speeches to large crowds, but in smaller settings he can be aloof and struggle to connect, they add. 

In the run-up to the midterms, both men have been traveling the country, appearing at events to rally conservatives, raise money, and support Republican candidates in competitive races. Much is at stake – control of the House and Senate, as well as numerous governor’s seats, including Mr. DeSantis’.

Chris O'Meara/AP/File

President Donald Trump (left) stands with Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis during a rally in Tampa, Florida, July 31, 2018. In their dealings with reporters, Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis have some similarities but also differ in key ways.

But at the moment it’s Mr. DeSantis who appears to have captured conservative imaginations – and ignited liberals’ ire – by shining a light on the nation’s immigration problem, just as Mr. Trump did in 2016. 

Divergent reactions to the Martha’s Vineyard flights “clearly reflect the polarization in this country,” says Professor MacManus. 

Island residents were applauded for their outpouring of compassion and material help when about 50 migrants, mostly from Venezuela, showed up last Wednesday in two small planes with no advance warning. 

At the same time, Vineyard residents also faced criticism when the migrants were quickly relocated to a military base on Cape Cod, leading some to accuse the liberal islanders of being hypocrites. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker – a lame-duck, moderate Republican – spearheaded the transfer, saying the migrants would have more access to the services they need. 

Here in Florida, where Hispanics are a critical component of the electorate, the fact that most of the migrants sent to Martha’s Vineyard were Venezuelan left some people scratching their heads. Florida’s Venezuelan community leans Republican, in part a response to its native country’s socialist regime. 

It’s too soon to say how Mr. DeSantis’ larger project of transporting migrants to “sanctuary communities” will ultimately play out politically, both in his home state and nationwide. For now, conservatives express enthusiastic support, while liberals are horrified.

“In our community, it is toxic,” says state Sen. Annette Taddeo, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Maria Salazar in a South Florida congressional district. Senator Taddeo is Colombian American, and Representative Salazar is Cuban American. 

But two women handing out DeSantis lawn signs at a street corner in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea are fully behind the governor’s tactic. 

“DeSantis couldn’t have made a better move,” says Mary Reid, who runs a business from home in nearby Fort Lauderdale. 

Charles Krupa/AP

Voters cast ballots Sept. 13, 2022, at a polling station in Derry, New Hampshire. A Supreme Court case to be heard this term could change the way U.S. elections are run.

The U.S. Supreme Court in its upcoming term will consider a case that could radically reshape how presidential and congressional elections are run in America.

The case, Moore v. Harper, centers on the controversial “independent state legislature” theory, which holds that a literal reading of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the final say in regulating votes for federal office, unchecked by governors, state courts, or provisions in state constitutions.

If approved by a Supreme Court majority, the most extreme reading of this theory could upend how many states draw their congressional districts. It could result in different ballots, different means of voting, and even different polling places for federal and state elections.

Conservative groups supporting the independent state legislature theory say that it is fairer for elected officials to write election rules, rather than unelected judges or administrators.

For the Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper is “a chance to restore stability by upholding the rule of law and clarifying that lawmakers, not courts and bureaucrats, make law,” said Jason Snead, the executive director of Honest Elections Project, earlier this month in an announcement on the case.

Critics say the theory runs counter to historical practice, removes constraints on legislatures’ actions, and could upend and sow confusion about democracy’s basic building block, the vote.

“Any version of this theory is meritless,” says Eliza Sweren-Becker, counsel in the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

What is the independent state legislature theory?

The U.S. Constitution delegates the power to hold federal elections to the states, under congressional supervision. At issue with the independent state legislature theory is how much power has been delegated, and to whom.

This turns on two key constitutional clauses. One, the elections clause, states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”

The second is the presidential electors clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

The key question here is: What did the Founders mean by “Legislature”?

The meaning in traditional use is that “Legislature” refers to a state’s entire lawmaking process. That means a legislature can pass state election law – but that law is subject to a governor’s veto. State courts can strike it down if they judge it violates a state’s constitution. Citizen referendums can alter it, if the state allows that practice related to other laws.

Proponents of the independent state legislature theory take a narrower view, saying that “Legislature” means just that – the legislature, and no other governmental institution. Neither governors nor courts nor state constitutions have a say in laws governing federal elections, in this approach. 

Where did the theory come from?

The roots of the theory lie in the disputed 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. In a concurrence to the Supreme Court’s final Bush v. Gore decision, which declared George W. Bush president, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, advanced a version of the independent state legislature approach that would have limited state court powers to interpret legislature-passed measures in some instances.

Kenneth Lambert/AP/File

Supreme Court police lined the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, Dec. 12, 2000, ahead of the court’s Bush v. Gore ruling, which halted further Florida recounts and brought George W. Bush to the White House. A concurrence written by three justices then is seen as the root of today’s independent state legislature theory.

Proponents of the independent state legislature theory say that it has antecedents in U.S. history. 

But there is little scholarly evidence that prior to 2000 anything resembling the independent state legislature theory was much of a legal issue in the U.S., according to Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at the New York University School of Law.

“The overall weight of historical practice supports the position that state constitutions can constrain state legislatures in the exercise of their ordinary lawmaking powers under the Elections and Electors Clauses,” wrote Professor Pildes in a response to questions from the House Committee on House Administration in August.

However, prior to the 2020 election, Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch hinted at support for a version of the independent state legislature theory in statements concerning a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to extend the deadline for receiving absentee ballots due to the pandemic. The court’s action overruled a deadline set by the legislature in Pennsylvania’s election laws.

“There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution,” wrote the justices in an opinion. 

What is Moore v. Harper about?

Moore v. Harper is a challenge to North Carolina’s congressional maps.

In the case, members of the North Carolina legislature are asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the district maps they drew with 2020 census data, and that the North Carolina courts struck down as a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution’s guarantee of free and fair elections. 

The state courts adopted instead new maps drawn by three court-appointed experts.

The independent state legislature theory is at the center of the case. The question plaintiffs presented to the court was whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify legislative regulations governing the manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, and replace them with regulations of the court’s own devising based on “vague state constitutional provisions.”

“The State Supreme Court transformed itself from a judicial body ... into an ersatz legislature that enacts its policy preferences through sheer force of will,” said the National Republican Redistricting Trust, a group that coordinates GOP redistricting efforts, in a friend of the court brief filed in the case. 

Critics hold that the legislature’s original maps were not just a gerrymander, but an egregious one. If the popular vote for Congress in the state had split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, 10 of the state’s 14 members of Congress would have been GOP, they say.

Gary D. Robertson/AP/File

Reggie Weaver speaks outside the Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Feb. 15, 2022, praising a ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court that struck down the state's maps as a partisan gerrymander. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on whether to reinstate those maps.

Reinstating the maps “would effectively allow the North Carolina legislature to violate its state constitution,” says Ms. Sweren-Becker.

What might happen to elections?

If the Supreme Court affirms a belief that “Legislature” means only “legislature” and the independent state legislature is not just a theory, but the law, organization and administration of the nation’s elections could be overturned.

There would be clear limits to the change, however the justices draw the new lines. It would affect only federal elections directly, not state and local ones, says Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Iowa School of Law and an expert on U.S. elections, in an email.

State legislatures would still be subject to the U.S. Constitution and federal law. This last point means state legislators would not be empowered to simply ignore a popular vote, and choose its own party’s presidential electors after a losing election.

Still, “it could be quite disruptive, depending on how far the court goes and how far legislatures choose to go with it after the fact, on a wide variety of routine election laws,” he says.

It is true that the theory would not just allow legislators to pick a new winner if they do not approve of the voters’ choice, says Ms. Sweren-Becker.

“It’s not a license to coup,” she says.

But it could override some efforts to control the political manipulation of congressional maps, such as state redistricting commissions. And it could split election administration in two, with one set of laws and regulations for state and local votes, and another for federal elections.

For instance, legislators could ban ballot drop-boxes, no-excuse mail-in voting, and early voting for presidential and congressional elections in the face of opposition from a state’s governor or courts. A governor’s veto or a court decision in turn could maintain those things in gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

Election officials might have the difficult and confusing job of administering a two-tier voting system.

Federal courts could be inundated with election litigation previously handled at the state and local level. Critics of the theory also worry that it could become an excuse, a means for legislators to push the boundaries of their legal powers, particularly in presidential elections.

“State legislatures might try to insert themselves into some state of the vote-counting process; here the legislature would claim that is helping to determine which candidate did in fact win the popular vote,” said Professor Pildes of New York University in his written response to the Committee on House Administration.

What’s next?

In March, North Carolina legislators filed an emergency appeal to have their congressional maps reinstated for 2022 elections. The Supreme Court denied that appeal. 

But in June, high court justices agreed to hear a regular appeal in the case in its 2022-2023 session. Over the summer, numerous interested parties on both sides filed friends of the court briefs in Moore v. Harper, including in September the Republican National Committee in favor of the plaintiffs, and a group of chief justices of state supreme courts, who argued against barring state court review of state election laws.

After hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court will likely issue a decision by July of next year.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/File

A wind farm shares space with cornfields in Latimer, Iowa, on Feb. 2, 2020. Marcy Franck, host of "The Climate Optimist" newsletter, says she draws hope from the sight of windmills when she visits family in Iowa. The gently rotating blades translate into clean energy supporting daily life across the region.

There’s a sense of calmness in rural Iowa. Its beauty isn’t lost on Marcy Franck.

But the beautiful vastness of corn and soybean fields across the horizon isn’t what sticks with Ms. Franck each time she pays a visit to her parents-in-law in the Midwest. Rather, it’s the wind turbines she sees in the distance. It’s the thought of how the machines’ gently rotating blades generate clean energy destined to travel across the region, and into peoples’ lives.

It’s the fact of progress in innovation.

“They’re an emblem of hope and our future,” Ms. Franck says.

Ms. Franck fashions herself as a prophet of optimism – by job title as well as by her approach to life in what many call the Anthropocene, an epoch of human dominance over the planet. She is the author of “The Climate Optimist” newsletter from the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 

She’s part of a growing movement of thought leaders who are opting to focus their attention on the positives in humankind’s effort to address climate change. Their message is not just that progress is happening, but also that hope is a crucial enabler of it. Without some focus on hope, the daunting scale of the climate problem can too easily lead toward doomerism, depression, and inaction. 

“Being optimistic and having hope, I think, is a practice where you can recenter, focus on the things that are going right, and focus on the solutions that are already taking hold,” Ms. Franck says.

While hard to measure, climate optimism in the United States has become more visible in the past few years. In part it’s a response to pessimism, to a rising sense of feeling either overwhelmed or powerless – that there’s nothing humanity can do. 

One sign of the times: In a 10-nation survey last year published in the health journal The Lancet, 59% of young people age 16 to 25 said they are extremely or very worried about climate change. Confronted with this, the optimists are not dismissing the urgency but arguing that action can make a difference – and that sometimes alarmism has been counterproductive.

Voicing hope, acknowledging anxiety

So, for Ms. Franck, some of her newsletters deal head-on with topics like how to maintain poise amid “the emotional roulette wheel of climate change” while others have pointed to “climate things going right.” 

Other examples of the trend: The book “Generation Dread,” new this year from researcher Britt Wray, tackles how people can strengthen their resilience in the face of eco-anxiety. Podcasters and advocacy groups are working to counter pessimism, as are bloggers inside and outside the environmental realm.

Meanwhile, an initiative called Global Optimism is backed by Christiana Figueres, the former United Nations climate official who helped broker the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate, seeking to convey that the climate crisis is both daunting and “conquerable.”

Markus Schreiber/AP/File

Christiana Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris climate agreement and co-founded an organization called Global Optimism, is pictured here in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 20, 2020. The group promotes the message that climate change is daunting but “conquerable.”

Scientists too are pushing back against the notion of a point-of-no-return for the planet. 

“We are not through a threshold or past the threshold,” University of Maine climate scientist Jacquelyn Gill told The Associated Press earlier this year. “There’s no such thing as pass-fail when it comes to the climate crisis.”

Some who track the climate issue say optimists are meeting a genuine need.

If we’re to collectively face the threat of climate change as a whole, “the thinking is that if I can show you a future you want to aspire to, I will unleash your creative energies, and you will strive towards the best,” says Dr. Andrew Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan and the author of “How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate.”

“People should understand the consequences” of global warming, Dr. Hoffman adds, but they can’t stop there. To truly understand is to “take a look at all the possibilities.”

Even as signs of the climate challenge mount, there are indications that innovation is opening new doors and that people can act effectively when they feel agency.

In California, consumers recently saved the state from blackouts during a severe heat wave by responding to an official appeal to curb their energy consumption.  

In July, Texas faced a similar situation. Not only were citizens called into action, the state’s renewable energy sector was also able to step up its production. Data released by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas noted how solar plants provided an additional 8 gigawatts of power to the grid at peak temperatures, contributing 9% more power than the state agency had expected.

Successes such as these, however modest, should be noted more widely, researchers say. Because to take a fatalistic approach is “to risk people throwing up their hands in the air and not doing anything,” says Christopher Barile, a researcher at the University of Nevada, Reno. He recently penned an essay on why scientists must remain optimistic in combating climate change.

Hope may be a boost not just for climate action but also for people’s individual wellness, judging by research on the correlation of optimism with better overall health. 

“We can actually solve this problem”

As optimism tussles with doubts in public thought, the question looms: Can we define the climate crisis before it defines us?

Millions of people are already being displaced each year by extreme weather-related events. Humanity is having to focus on adapting to climate change, alongside efforts to stabilize Earth’s temperatures by curbing greenhouse emissions.

Still, Dr. Barile says big ideas and action are not just needed but possible. 

“The fact is, we can actually solve this problem,” he says.

The Inflation Reduction Act recently signed by President Joe Biden, which authorizes $369 billion in energy and climate spending, is a step in the right direction, climate policy experts say. 

The elegance of turbines across the wide Iowa horizon is another example.

It’s in those moments that Ms. Franck, “The Climate Optimist” newsletter author, sees an opportunity to take stock in our shared success.  

“It’s human nature to focus on the problem,” she says. 

“But it feels so much better to focus on the solution.”

As most golfers know, sometimes it’s about the golf, and sometimes it’s about the course. But can it also be about the art? The creator of Big Stone Mini Golf and Sculpture Garden hopes so.

On a sunny summer day, putt-putters are lined up on the first tee, at a sculpture called Dead Tree Forest, which has artful trees and stumps blocking the way to the hole. It’s clear no one is getting a hole-in-one here, but players don’t seem to mind. 

Most of the enjoyment of mini golf is the challenge of impossible obstacles. Here, part of the fun comes just from looking at the obstacles themselves.

They’re from the mind of artist Bruce Stillman, who originally specialized in kinetic sculpture. He constructed the course on his 17-acre property to attract people to an adjoining sculpture garden that features his own work plus that of 16 other artists and counting. 

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

Artist Bruce Stillman and his dog, Maggie, stand by his sculpture Venus Fly Trap at Big Stone Mini Golf and Sculpture Garden.

“Most people aren’t cultured to look at art, but they like games,” he says. His 14-hole putt-putt course displays his imagination and his love of what he calls “landscape sculpture.” Mr. Stillman says, “I like working with nature. ... Nature is the best artist.”

Guests are encouraged to wander the sculpture garden before or after a round of golf, where they might encounter one of the goats or chickens that live on the property. The proceeds from mini golf are used to buy more sculpture and support local art projects.

Lou Gengenbach and her grandsons are marveling at the ingenuity of each hole as her husband, Burle, keeps score. “There’s something to look at at every turn,” she says. “Such creativity. I’m glad other people have it so I can enjoy it!”

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

Donny Robson plays between sunflower sculptures on the ninth hole, Crow de Sole. Metal crows perch on several of the sunflowers.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

Visitors climb atop a turtle made of recycled tires created by artist Alex Zamesin.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

The unblinking eye of a turtle stares out from a sculpture made of tires by Mr. Zamesin.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

Golf balls float through curvy cutouts in stone on the last hole called Gently Down the Stream.

Reuters

Teacher Leonard Gamaigue was inspired to set up a mobile school when he saw children playing at a nomad camp near N'Djamena, Chad, Sept. 1.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, roughly 483 million children worldwide have had no learning opportunities during the past two years, and 147 million missed more than half of their in-class instruction, according to the United Nations. In Karnataka, India, the number of grade four students able to read grade two text has halved.

Over the past three days, however, a gathering of educators, officials, and development experts at the U. N. has underscored that the pandemic did not just result in lost time in the classroom. It has also spurred beneficial new debates about how to promote inclusivity in education, strengthen the teaching profession, boost funding in developing countries, and tap digital technology to reinvent lesson plans.

The pandemic’s most important impact on education, the gathering has shown, may be the way it has changed one of the most important activities in learning: listening – particularly to those who are more typically the recipients of education rather than its developers.

The U.N. asked nearly half a million youths worldwide for their learning priorities and aspirations. The result was a formal youth declaration that framed the summit. “I did not come here to talk,” Secretary-General António Guterres said in his opening remarks. “I came here to listen.” 

That humble approach offers a timely corrective amid troubling signs that global youths are disengaging from civic activity. Across Africa, for example, youth votes as a percentage of total ballots cast declined in what were potentially pivotal elections in Kenya, Angola, and Senegal. Their withdrawal reflected wider disillusionment about the state of democracy in their countries as well as their economic prospects. As one youth respondent told a recent Chatham House survey, “The present political elite look at youth as either tools or rivals, not as partners.”

Yet the U.N. education summit has shown that youths are eager to be heard when offered an opportunity – and that they are deeply aware of the global trends shaping their futures. “We, the youth of the world, recognize that our contemporary world is teeming with multiple and tumultuous crises,” the youth declaration stated. “In order to redeem and remake the state of the world, we must first transform the state of education ... not as passive beneficiaries but as partners and collaborators every step of the way.”

At a time when students face multiple disruptions to learning, whether from natural disasters or from policies like the Taliban’s ban on education for girls, such challenges require safeguarding every child’s right to an education. As the students and experts meeting at the U.N. over the past few days emphasized, that right includes not just an opportunity to be instructed – but also to be heard.