# data[].attributes.headline
These 7 Numbers Show How Global Poverty Remains a Huge Problem - Paola Govea - Mod. 9

# data[].attributes.subject
These 7 Numbers Show How Global Poverty Remains a Huge Problem - Paola Govea - Mod. 9

# data[].attributes.body
The soaring issue on global poverty has been a long battle with many claiming that gross inequality is the cause. In the article presented by Huffington Post "These 7 numbers show how global poverty remains a huge problem", author Laura Paddison reveals how extreme this inequality is by providing supported research and statistics on how inequality has impacted 800 million people.

The statistics provided by Laura hits key points such as the 19.5 % of children who are affected by poverty, the 767 million who live on less than $1.90 dollars a day, and the 8 men who own the same amount of wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world according to a Oxfam report. The battle of who is to blame and how to eradicate this issue cannot be resolved by exposing global inequality rather it is important we humanize and universalize values and morals. In the U.S we believe that providing monetary aid is the solution in helping those in less fortunate countries however as noted by Mackinnon and Fiala (2017) there is undeniable risk that the profits fall into political or local corruption and/or banks and corporations seeking profit (p. 573).

It is important that we focus on a new change in order to meet the UN commitment to end global poverty by 2030. New change includes helping those less fortunate by educating them, focusing on their mental and physical health in order to provide effective aid. As the notion states "Give a poor man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. " It is important to note that we can throw all the money and try to ignore this growing issue but as humans we should employ values and occupations that can help those less fortunate.

This notion of "funding" violates the ethical theory of Natural Law which as praised by Thomas Aquinas and stated by Mackinnon and Fiala (2017) shares that "we ought to treat ourselves and others as being that capable of understanding and free choice" (p. 143). We are hindering and ignoring the truth that many suffer and are unable to pursuit education. We believe that throwing money alleviates our duty to maintain global justice and equality. We need to find a new focus on change by reevaluating our values and creating a effective and universal aid.

Reference:
Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

Paddison L. (2017, October 16). These 7 numbers show how global poverty remains a huge problem. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/global-poverty-by-the-numbers_us_59e4d77ee4b04d1d5183787b?utm_hp_ref=global-poverty

Ratcliff, A. (2017, January 16). Just 8 men own the same wealth as half of the world. Oxfam International. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world?cid=aff_affwd_donate_id78888&awc=5991_1513257836_4802d962676356a6e8a3293ba708647b

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Congress about to wreck America's natural treasures? -  Paola Govea - Mod. 6

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Congress about to wreck America's natural treasures? -  Paola Govea - Mod. 6

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Kathleen McLaughlin tugs on America's heart by revealing incoming assaults on some of America's most beloved landmarks. This threat led by Congress and Trump administration was first noted when  President Trump ordered the Interior Department to review the size and scope of national monuments back in April (2017, Schlossberg).

Mrs. McLaughlin does a great job in this article of relating the historic landmarks to Kant's view on Aesthetics. As mentioned by MacKinnon and Faila, aesthetic pleasures can be a benefiting factor in the measure of happiness (2017, p. 98). The fruitfulness of viewing these monuments as mentioned by Greg Gunther, a retired forest ranger "is mind blowing." The protection of these landmarks are vital in order to conserve the beauty of nature and a direct attack on them is not only a environmental impact but deprivation of happiness.

Additionally, this moral battle on protected landmarks may threaten the valuable resources to the earth and the animal population. Ecocentrism who believe that all individual life forms have intrinsic worth may argue that Congress and Trump are not regarding the fact that nature has intrinsic value. These advocates have a strong belief that even if historical landmarks have prima facie value, they still hold a value not only in terms of bringing in tourist but values for the ecosystem.

Reference:

Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. P

McLaughlin, K. (2017, October 21). Is Congress about to wreck America's natural treasures? The Guardian. Retrieved from : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/21/why-going-after-this-act-of-congress-could-wreck-americas-national-parks

Schlossberg, T. (2017, April 26). What is antiquities act and why does president trump want to change it?.  The New York times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/antiquities-act-federal-lands-donald-trump.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One-hundred-eleven years and a few months ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed the landmark law that helped cement his place as America's conservation president.

The Antiquities Act is brief - just two sentences allow a president to set aside for federal protection "objects of historic or scientific interest".

It's been used dozens of times by 16 presidents from both parties to preserve some of America's most beloved wild lands and historic landmarks, laying the foundations for national parks and generations of family adventures. Many national parks - including South Dakota's Badlands, Alaska's Kenai Fjords and Death Valley in California and Nevada - began as national monuments.

Those lands are now facing a two-headed assault from Congress and the Trump administration, and the act itself faces an uncertain future.

Within a few months of signing the Antiquities Act, Roosevelt chose the country's first national monument - a hulking 1,267ft-tall butte that towers above the forests of eastern Wyoming. In his proclamation on 24 September 1906, Roosevelt called Devil's Tower "such an extraordinary example of the effect of erosion in the higher mountains as to be a natural wonder".

'There's nothing like it in the world. Protecting it was crucial'

Jeff Muratore, an avid outdoorsman from Casper, Wyoming, hunts in the shadow of Devil's Tower.

"Growing up in Wyoming and hunting the Black Hills, it's familiar from many of the mountains around," he says. "I think it's important that it's been protected because of how unique it is. There's nothing like it in the world. Protecting it was crucial."

If a bill quietly working its way through the House of Representatives right now were law 111 years ago, Devil's Tower wouldn't have qualified as a national monument. Neither would the Grand Canyon, which Roosevelt protected as a monument in 1908 before it was made a national park. Nor would the Petrified Forest national park, Utah's Zion national park, Bryce Canyon or many of America's other legendary protected lands.

For Greg Munther, a retired forest ranger and biologist in Missoula, Montana, the national landmark closest to his heart is a the Upper Missouri River Breaks, a nearly 500,000-acre stretch of wild and scenic river in north-central Montana.

Munther first visited the spot about 40 years ago and was awestruck. "It was just mind-blowing," he said.

"You don't see intrusions, you don't see modern life. When you are in there and you think about the history, and it's still intact. It's just like it was when Lewis and Clark took their boats up."

The Upper Missouri River Breaks wouldn't qualify as a monument under the bill, sponsored by Republican Rob Bishop of Utah. Like many monuments, it's too big. The measure would cap the size of monuments and, critically, remove the ability to protect monuments of scientific interest, ruling out places selected for their unique formations like the giant sequoia trees of California and Wyoming's Fossil Butte.

In an op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Bishop called the Antiquities Act, "a menace to constitutional government". Bishop targeted Barack Obama's use of the act to protect 553.6m acres in two dozen monuments across the country. "Actions such as these are not the rule of law," he said. "It is arbitrary rule by one man."

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

A winding road through Sequoia national park. Photograph: Nick Jackson/Rex Shutterstock

Bishop's bill, which has drawn united opposition from sporting and recreation groups across the country, could give legal authority to the Trump administration to shrink monuments. The interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, this summer recommended reducing the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, and Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou monument, but he hasn't made his review public.

Public lands supporters across the American west see it as hand-in-glove with the Trump administration's efforts to shrink public lands and protections. For many, the attack is personal.

"You look at places like the Upper Missouri Breaks here in Montana or the Organ Mountain Desert Peaks in New Mexico, these monuments are places for us to go experience the solitude and challenge that really only our public lands allow us," said Land Tawney, president of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a national conservation group based in Montana. "Our connections are deep and pretty strong. These are not places you put on a shelf."

Bishop's office did not respond to requests for comment on the measure, which last week passed the House natural resources committee without public hearing.

Three million comments left by the American public

For a sense of the depth of America's love affair with its national monuments, take a stroll through the nearly three million comments submitted to the interior department on Zinke's still officially private review of the scope of national monuments.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Moon over Baldy Peak and La Cueva, on the west side of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peak, New Mexico. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

The vast majority - one appraisal says 96% - favor keeping current monuments for future generations. Zinke has dismissed the flood of comments, saying they were part of a " well-orchestrated national campaign ". And yes, many are repetitive; many are personal.

One person wrote:

"I grew up in Arizona, traveling to national monuments with my family on vacation in a pop-up trailer. Camping around the country to go visit national monuments was a highlight of my childhood and one I would like my future children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to experience."

Others go straight to the point:

"Please do not reduce our public monuments. They are more important than most people understand. They should be expanded, not reduced."

And another:

"I want public lands preserved so my daughter and her children can enjoy the natural beauties of America as I was able to do growing up."

Zinke's monument review reportedly includes a surprising expansion - a recommendation for a new monument in his home state of Montana, protecting the Badger Two Medicine, a wilderness sacred to the Blackfeet Indian Tribe.

But there's a catch, even for the swaggering interior secretary who styles himself as a modern-day Theodore Roosevelt.

At nearly 130,000 acres, his favored wilderness is too big, and too wild, to qualify as a monument under Bishop's bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Congress about to wreck America's natural treasures?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One-hundred-eleven years and a few months ago, Theodore Roosevelt signed the landmark law that helped cement his place as America's conservation president. The Antiquities Act is brief - just two sentences allow a president to set aside for federal protection "objects of historic or scientific interest".

# data[].attributes.headline
Lawmakers Are Again Fighting Over Drilling In The Fragile Arctic Wildlife Refuge - Paola Govea - Mod.3

# data[].attributes.subject
Lawmakers Are Again Fighting Over Drilling In The Fragile Arctic Wildlife Refuge - Paola Govea - Mod.3

# data[].attributes.body
This controversial issue presented by Huffington Post tackles the struggle for wilderness preservation that has been an enduring ethical concern for centuries.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has battled for preserving the wilderness in Alaska for the past 40 years and on November 2, 2017, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, voiced her opinion for potential oil and gas drilling within the protected wilderness.

In the article Chris D’Angelo goes into detailed information about the hundreds of species that currently inhabit the area which lawmakers have considered for potential oil and gas development. The battle over the territory meets several key points such as the development of over thousand new jobs and economically benefiting the state and nation. However, opposing lawmakers and representatives have supporting research that poor revenue will not be worth such an environmental impact.

This moral dilemma can be associated to MacKinnon and Fiala, ethical issues on climate change and wilderness preservation (2017, p 427- 434). Many key points need to considered in situations like this such as human survival but opposing views show that forest and wilderness areas are valuable sources to the earth and to mankind. The high demand for oil continues to rise and as technology continues to advance there is possibility for a smaller footprint impact on the environment. However, historical research shows that oil companies who have drilled or diggned into pristine forests have left behind toxic wastelands.

Reference:

D'Angelo, C. (2017, November 2). Lawmakers are again fighting over drilling in the fragile arctic wildlife refuge. Huffington Post.

Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. (2017, November 02). Alaska Delegation: Now is the right time to open Alaska's 1002 area. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/11/alaska-delegation-now-is-the-right-time-to-open-alaska-s-1002-area

Reply

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - A little more than two years after recommending that the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be designated as wilderness, a move that would have permanently protected the area from commercial development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on Thursday voiced support for oil and gas drilling in this remote and fragile ecosystem.

Although a significant change in course, the move comes as little surprise. The Trump administration's 2018 fiscal year budget calls for allowing oil and gas production in the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, also known as the 1002 area.

The administration says that development there would generate an estimated $1.8 billion over a decade - a figure that's both highly disputed and only slightly more than the $1.6 billion President Donald Trump is looking to slash from the Interior Department's annual budget.

Greg Sheehan, principal deputy director of the FWS, was among a dozen panelists to testify during an hours-long, and at times tense, hearing Thursday of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As expected, he went to bat for a Republican-led effort to open the refuge to energy exploration and extraction.

"We support responsible development, in whatever form or fashion that best occurs in," he said. Sheehan added that if Congress passes legislation, the agency would "use the best science, the best technologies and other strategies" to ensure activities have the "least amount of impact on the native wildlife species."

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), described by some as "America's Serengeti," covers more than 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. It is home to polar bears, caribou, moose and hundreds of species of migratory birds. In 1980, with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress expanded the refuge, but opted not to give wilderness status to the 1002 area, setting it aside for potential future oil and gas development. Granting leases for that purpose, however, requires an act of Congress.

The issue of drilling in the arctic refuge has long been the subject of controversy and debate. Over the last several decades, many attempts to open the area to drilling - as well as others aimed at banning it - have failed.

The battle over this pristine slice of arctic land has been given new life under the Trump administration, which is pushing for increased fossil fuel development in its quest for "energy dominance." In May, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke signed an order to "jump-start Alaskan energy production." He said at the time that the move was an "important first step in a smart and measured approach to energy development in ANWR."

Republicans, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other state lawmakers, have for years been advocating for opening ANWR's coastal plain. The Senate budget plan includes a provision that tasks the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which Murkowski is chair, with finding $1 billion in additional revenue over the next decade to help pay for tax reform.

Murkowski stressed Thursday that opening up "a small portion" of the 1002 area to oil and gas would not only get the job done, but benefit both the state and the nation for decades.

"We are asking [for] 2,000 acres, or about one ten-thousandth of the refuge," she said. "And we've waited nearly 40 years for the right technologies to come along so that the footprint of development is small enough to ensure that the environment continues to be respected and will not be harmed. This is not a choice between energy and the environment. We are past that."

But the economic benefits that supporters of the proposal often speak about are not clear cut. An analysis by the left-leaning Center for American Progress found that by drilling in the refuge, the U.S. government would likely only collect $37.5 million over 10 years. David Murphy, an assistant professor at St. Lawrence University, concluded in a report published Wednesday that "drilling there would have little appreciable effect on increasing U.S. energy security," and that "current presidential and congressional budget projections are unrealistic, and thus that it would be fiscally irresponsible to pursue this path on a budget justification."

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that previous lease sales in the Arctic "suggest the U.S. is likely to collect less than a fifth of that billion-dollar goal over the next decade - about $145.5 million - from auctioning off territory in the sprawling northeast Alaska refuge."

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the minority's ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said she is both "disturbed" by the process - budget bills require only a simple majority vote and cannot be filibustered - and finds it "hard to believe that there will be the economic incentive to drill" in ANWR.

"We are here today because someone has come up with a ludicrous idea that we can pass a tax reform bill that raises the deficit and increases our taxes, and that will take a sliver out of a wildlife refuge to do it," she said. "I almost want to call this 'caribou for millionaires' because it is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard as it relates to meeting the tax reform agenda."

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who joined the hearing as a panelist, called drilling in the refuge an issue of national security and dismissed the idea that opening the coastal plain would have severe negative environmental impacts. To make his point, he reached for a pen.

"I represent Alaska," he said, drawing a small dot on the tip of his nose. "You see anything different with my nose right now?" (The mark was clearly visible)

"This little dot on my nose - I weigh 225 pounds - this little dot is what we're talking about," he said. "I don't think it changed my appearance very much, because the coastal plain is not that pristine area you see in the propaganda that's portrayed by all the environmental groups. It is a flat terrain that in fact was set aside by this Congress" for development and not preservation, he added.

Perhaps the most powerful testimony Thursday came from Samuel Alexander, a representative of the Gwich'in tribe. He said it is the duty of Gwich'in people to protect the land and animals on it. And the tribe, he said, views drilling in the 1002 area as an attack on their freedom and the caribou on which they depend.

"Money can't buy our wealth, but the reckless pursuit of money can take it away," he said. "And for that, we will never stop fighting to protect the porcupine caribou herd and our way of life."

Asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) about claims that developing oil in ANWR and elsewhere in the U.S. under strict environmental regulations helps mitigate the effects of climate change, Alexander said it reminded him of a phrase he and others used during his time in the Army: a "self-licking ice cream cone."

"That's really what this has become," he said. "We are trying to drill more oil, pump out more pollutants to address climate change and the impact that it has. That is just insanity to me."

Alaska Lt. Gov. Byron Mallot said Thursday that developing the coastal plain "will allow us to have fiscal resources to meet rapidly changing climate circumstances. Otherwise, we have no real ability to respond."

Earlier this month, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Cantwell and other Democrats to bar drilling in ANWR. On Thursday, Democrats accused Republicans of putting short-term economic gains over environmental protection.

"It ought to be clear," Cantwell said. "If you want to open up the arctic refuge, you should just admit you're going to destroy the wildlife refuge."

"We clearly disagree that this is an either-or proposition," she said. "It clearly is not. For those of us who call Alaska home, to suggest that we would despoil our environment for short-term gain is offensive."

ALSO ON HUFFPOST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states senate committee on energy and natural resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
alaska national interest lands conservation act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers Are Again Fighting Over Drilling In The Fragile Arctic Wildlife Refuge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - A little more than two years after recommending that the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be designated as wilderness, a move that would have permanently protected the area from commercial development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on Thursday voiced support for oil and gas drilling in this remote and fragile ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.headline
As poverty rises, the affluent won't be able to escape its effects - Paola Govea - Mod. 4

# data[].attributes.subject
As poverty rises, the affluent won't be able to escape its effects - Paola Govea - Mod. 4

# data[].attributes.body
In his article,  "As poverty rises, the affluent won't be able to escape its effects" Darren McGarvey really hits the nail on the head on the grossly effect of economic inequality. Darren mentions that the struggles that people in poverty face is not only their employment income but also their health issues. People in poverty deal with constant stress which can then spill to psychologically health problem such as violence and addiction. This instability has been blindsided by those of higher class however the unstable social dysfunction will soon become a universal chaos if no political consensus is achieved.

This moral dilemma can be associated to Mackinnon and Faila, ethical issues on economic equality (2017, pg 346 - 350). The key points mentioned by Darren is that compromise needs to be considered by all social classes in order to diminish poverty. In the United States, the Affordable Care Act, was presented in 2010 in order expand health insurance coverage to many uninsured, mostly low income Americans (pg 349.) This action is considered to be long term political consensus but it has failed to contain rising health care costs (Eilperin & Johnson, 2017). This frustration is a currently social uproar but I believe that the long term solution is that mental health for Americans could not only improve the well being of individuals but also control behavior problems in poverty locations. Thus, the improved communities can lead to increased property and market value and ultimately provide more employment and better education.

References:
Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2017). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

McGarvey, D. (2017, November 4). As poverty rises, the affluent won't be able to escape its effects. The Guardian.

Eilperin, J. & Johnson C. Y. (2017, July 28). What's next for the affordable care act now that repeal has failed? The Washington Post. Retrieved from:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/whats-next-for-the-affordable-care-act-now-that-repeal-has-failed/2017/07/28/e209c7ce-70b5-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.469a506cecf3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicting a sharp rise in child poverty will provoke the usual, commendable, shrieks of indignation. When news that more children than ever before are soon to be confined to economic deprivation, it's sure to inspire a slew of robust dinner party debates.

The overriding emotion anyone should be feeling at news that in excess of a third of British children will soon be growing up in relative poverty is fear. The tidal wave of social problems racing towards all of us because of this unsustainable inequality has the potential to overwhelm society.

The cracks are already beginning to show. Take the various constitutional crises gripping Europe. Regardless of the political composition of the movement, the grievance that provokes is invariably the same: political and economic marginalisation underscored by the most galling wealth polarisation.

I'm one of those formerly "poor people" vomited up from the gaping class wound at the heart of British society to offer "shocking", "inspiring" testimony about the adversity they have since transcended. You might find me recounting the day my drunk mum chased me with a knife or see me on television looking very bored as I explain, yet again, that I managed to avoid smoking crack because somebody knocked on the front door as the pipe was being passed to me.

I'm one of structural poverty's most comforting cultural tropes: the survivor who lived to tell the tale.

It's now commonplace to point out the correlation between poverty and nearly every other social problem you care to mention. Not just economic hardship, but poverty of the sort that fertilises cultures of abuse. This problem transcends left/right politics and will eventually overwhelm any society that refuses to deal with it.

When these problems flare up, they are rarely contained within a household or a community. Instead, they spill into our society and multiply, at a massive cost to us all. They spill into overcrowded casualty and high-dependency hospital wards. They spill into six-month waiting lists to access clinical psychologists and psychiatric counselling facilities. They spill into overrun social work departments and inundated supported accommodation projects barely keeping their heads above water. They spill into stressful housing offices, packed to capacity crisis centres and outmoded addictions services. And, for some, they spill into police stations, courts, children's homes, secure units, young offender institutions and prisons.

Poverty is not only about a lack of employment or opportunity but about having no margin for error while living in constant stress and emotional unpredictability. For many children growing up in the chaos, deprivation leaves them emotionally disfigured and physiologically primed for chronic health problems.

What do you think is driving many of our current social problems where crime, violence, homelessness, addiction and the mental health epidemic are concerned? It all begins with a child living in social deprivation. And when it comes to the scourge of child neglect and abuse, poverty is the factory floor.

For now, the problems remain contained, confined only to the communities we call "deprived", where the poor can be monitored, surveyed, policed and punished. But only for so long.

Action on poverty will require a far-reaching, long-term political consensus. It will require compromises and excruciating levels of humility from all of us, including the poor. This may require us to become willing to admit we may be wrong about some things and that there are no easy solutions or clear villains.

In other words, the situation can seem hopeless.

A great irony of British life is that lower-class people are often regarded, by their affluent superiors, as being a little coarse and unsophisticated, rough around the edges - when the true vulgarity on display is the apathy of many of those who regard themselves as educated and insightful; those who blindly believe, from the comfort of their economically gated communities, that this untenable status quo, built on sand, won't soon collapse in on itself, as the coming wave of social dysfunction crashes aground and washes us all away.

Darren McGarvey's Poverty Safari has just been published

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As poverty rises, the affluent won't be able to escape its effects | Darren McGarvey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicting a sharp rise in child poverty will provoke the usual, commendable, shrieks of indignation. When news that more children than ever before are soon to be confined to economic deprivation, it's sure to inspire a slew of robust dinner party debates.