# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Human Activity Responsible for Climate Change? 13 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pro side argues the rising levels of greenhouse gases is from burning fossil fuels, the con side argues the planet is capable of absorbing those increases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | New Zealand farmers have new tool: Drones that bark like dogs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Zealand farmers try out barking drone to herd sheep.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The California Department of Public Health is investigating nine measles cases tied to Disneyland or Disney California Adventure Park, officials said Wednesday.

The cases were reported in California and Utah and probably occurred when the victims were visiting the theme parks during the holidays from Dec. 15 to Dec. 20, officials said.

Health officials said it is likely that a single person with measles visited the parks during that period, exposing the other visitors.

"If you have symptoms, and believe you may have been exposed, please contact your healthcare provider," state health officer Ron Chapman said in a statement. "The best way to prevent measles and its spread is to get vaccinated."

The California cases were discovered in the counties of Alameda, Orange, Riverside and San Diego, as well as the city of Pasadena, and included children as young as 8 months, officials said. Two additional park visitors who were diagnosed as having measles live in Utah.

"We are working with the health department to provide any information and assistance we can, " said Dr. Pamela Hymel, the chief medical officer Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

Two of the cases involve members of the same family from San Diego County, according to the county Health and Human Services Agency.

The two siblings may have later exposed additional people who were at the Parkway Plaza Mall in El Cajon on Dec. 29 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., especially those who were at the GameStop, the Sunglasses Hut or the carousel in the mall, the agency said.

Though measles had largely vanished in the United States, and was no longer considered to be a year-round threat, there has been an increase in confirmed cases.

In California, Orange County led the way last year with 22 of the 62 confirmed cases statewide. The outbreak came on the heels of a tough flu season.

County health officials expressed concern that the upswing in cases appeared to coincide with a growing anti-vaccine movement. Of the Orange County cases, many were in suburban neighborhoods where some schools showed an elevated rate of parents opting out of having their children vaccinated, or who had slowed down the vaccination process.

Though rare in the U.S., measles outbreaks continue to be reported in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and western Europe.

The vaccine, which also defends against mumps and rubella, is recommended to be administered in two doses, the first after a child turns 1, the second usually before kindergarten.

People can be infectious with measles for nine days. Measles typically begins with a fever, a cough, a runny nose and red eyes and within a few days a red rash appears, usually first on the face and then spreading downward to the rest of the body.

Measles is a highly infectious, airborne disease that is easily spread by coughing, sneezing or coming in contact with an infected person.
For more Orange County news, follow on Twitter. Read more: Plunge in kindergartners vaccination rates worries health officials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health alert after Disneyland linked to measles outbreak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The California Department of Public Health is investigating nine measles cases tied to Disneyland or Disney California Adventure Park, officials said Wednesday. The cases were reported in California and Utah and probably occurred when the victims were visiting the theme parks during the holidays from Dec. 15 to Dec.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present

The Immigration Act of 1907 broadens the categories of people banned from immigrating to the U.S. The list excludes "imbeciles," "feeble-minded" people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of "moral turpitude."

The "Gentleman's Agreement" between the U.S. and Japan ends the immigration of Japanese workers.

Congress passes the Expatriation Act of 1907 that says women must adopt the citizenship of their husbands. Therefore, women who marry foreigners lose their U.S. citizenship unless their husbands become citizens.

The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered "subversives" from immigrating.

News breaks about inhumane detention centers along the US-Mexico border; there are numerous stories of unsanitary conditions, violence, and the separation of children from their families. Protests break out across the country and around the globe, and many call for the dissolution of ICE, the immigration organization seen as most responsible for the detentions. As of summer 2020, the detention centers remain a matter of public debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History and timeline of immigration laws passed in the U.S. from the colonial period to the present

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

The Science

Science paints a clear picture: Climate change is happening; it is caused mostly by humans; and it creates many serious and damaging effects. The primary cause of climate change is human activities - like driving cars, creating electricity, and cutting down forests - not natural changes in the climate. These human activities release gases into the atmosphere called greenhouse gases, which slowly warm the planet, creating climate change.

The climate is very complex, and there are still some things we don't know about it. But through centuries of studies and experiments, we've been able to create a strong understanding of how the system works, and how humans are changing it.

The Greenhouse Effect

Imagine a greenhouse made of glass used to grow plants, like flowers and vegetables. The greenhouse keeps the plants inside warm even when it's cold outside because it traps heat from the sun. The earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse: When light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, some of it is absorbed by the Earth's surface to heat it, but some heat is also trapped in our atmosphere by certain gases. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases, and they act like a blanket, keeping the earth warm. This greenhouse effect is a natural process that makes the planet comfortable to live.

But human activities are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. One type of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has reached a level in our atmosphere that the Earth hasn't seen for more than 400,000 years! Plants, soils, and the ocean can absorb carbon dioxide, but they can't keep up with all the extra greenhouse gases that we have been releasing. And some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for a long time, from hundreds to even thousands of years. All these gases are making things hotter than natural, so we need to stop producing them to avoid climate change.

Weather vs. Climate

Weather refers to the state of the atmosphere in a short period of time, like minutes or days. It includes lots of things we are familiar with, like temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind speeds. The weather changes every day, but the climate is much more consistent because it measures the patterns of weather over long periods of time (at least several decades). Let's say you were going to visit Florida for a few days in June. You would expect it to be hot and humid, because that's what the climate of Florida is usually like in June. It might turn out to be hot during your trip, or it could rain or be cloudy. All of those are examples of possible weather during those days.

The Greenhouse Effect Explained

Where do greenhouse gases come from?

Up until about 150 years ago, humans did not produce many greenhouse gases. That changed as the human population grew, we cut down forests to make way for cities and farms, and important inventions and technology, like in-home electricity and cars, transformed the way we live.

These inventions and technologies need energy. Some types of energy called fossil fuels - like coal, oil, and natural gas - have become important sources of that energy. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We call the release of these gases emissions.

Today in the United States, electricity and transportation (cars, trucks, and planes) are responsible for almost 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest comes from agriculture, industry - such as factories that make products we use - and from energy we use in our homes and businesses.
Learn more about U.S. greenhouse gas emissions here.
Greenhouse Gases

The most common types of greenhouse gases are:

Carbon Dioxide (CO ₂): Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas created by human activities. It makes up 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) are burned for electricity and transportation, and because of other processes like making cement. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored when it is absorbed by plants, soils, animals, and the ocean as part of the carbon cycle.
Learn more about how energy emissions are controlled in the United States.

Methane (CH ₄): Methane is the next most common greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It makes up 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Most methane emissions come from raising livestock (like cows), but methane is also released when coal, natural gas, and oil are produced and transported, and when organic waste (like food) decays in landfills. Methane is a stronger gas than carbon dioxide, meaning it creates more warming, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time.
Learn more about how industrial greenhouse gases like methane are controlled in the United States.

Nitrous Oxide (N ₂ O): Most nitrous oxide is emitted by agricultural activities, like applying fertilizer, but it also comes from industrial activities, burning fossil fuels, and other sources. It makes up 6 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions. Nitrous oxide is even more powerful than methane and carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6): Try saying these gases three times fast! They're called "fluorinated gases" for short. These gases combined make up only 3 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That may sound small, but they are very important to solving climate change because they stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (sometimes for thousands of years!) and are much more powerful warmers than all other gases. These gases are made by humans and are used to cool our refrigerators, freezers, buildings and cars.

U.S. Greenhouse Gases by Gas Type and Sector, 2021

Impacts of a Changing Climate

Because of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures are rising. Each of the past four decades has been warmer than the previous one. 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record, and the six warmest years have all been since 2010.
Learn more about the relationship between extreme weather and climate change.
The following charts show how emissions and temperatures have gone up since 1900, and how they could continue to change in the future. If we continue to emit more and more greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth will rise a lot - maybe as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Even if we reduce our emissions right now, the temperature of the Earth will still rise slightly, but we might be able to keep the rise below 2 degrees Celsius (or about 4.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Two degrees might not sound like much, but scientists agree that even that small amount of warming can have large impacts on humans and the environment.

Past and Projected Changes in Carbon Emissions and Temperature

Rising global temperatures affect many things, like extreme weather, human health, food supply, and ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt today, and groups like the poor, elderly, and others are especially vulnerable.
Impacts of climate change include:

Heat waves. Heat waves are long periods of time with temperatures that are hotter than normal. As the Earth warms, more areas will be at risk for hotter and more common extreme heat waves. Learn more about the link between climate change and extreme heat.

Heavy precipitation and storms. Heavy precipitation - like rain or snow - is becoming more common in many locations, which can lead to flooding and other dangerous weather. As seas warm, coastal storms like hurricanes are also becoming more frequent and damaging. Learn more about the link between climate change and heavy precipitation and hurricanes.

Sea level rise. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 because glaciers and ice sheets are melting and seas are warming. Scientists predict that, with 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, sea levels could rise by as much as 1.8 feet this century, which would harm communities living on islands and near coasts. These rises could be even higher if glaciers in Greenland or Antarctica melt very quickly.

Threats to habitats and animals. Warming temperatures, rising seas, melting ice, and other impacts of climate change can threaten the habitat of many plants and animals. Some species are moving to new habitats, but others may struggle to adapt and become endangered or extinct.

Ocean acidification. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic. This can make it difficult for corals and organisms that form shells to survive, which can create problems in the food chain for other sea animals.

Wildfires. These are fires that burn large amounts of forests and brush. When they are not controlled, wildfires can destroy homes and be deadly. The number of large wildfires and the length of the season when they're most likely and threatening have been increasing in recent years. Find out how climate change will worsen wildfire conditions.

Drought. A drought is a period with little rain and not enough water. Global warming will increase the risk of drought in some places and make it harder to grow food. Learn about the links between climate change and drought.

How can you help?

Even though climate change sounds scary, we still have time to avoid some of the worst impacts. Everyone can play a part, including government, businesses, and you.

There are two main things we need to do:

The first is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. By choosing cleaner ways to power our homes, offices, and cars, and being more efficient and less wasteful, we can produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

There are lot of things you can do to help, like turning off the lights when you leave a room to reduce the electricity you use, walking or biking where you can, or planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide. If you do any of these things, make sure you communicate with other people (like your family, teachers, and friends) about why you're doing them! Communication can inspire more people to change their habits and help save the climate.

Look for more ideas on what we can do together and individually.

The second is to prepare for life in a changing climate. Even if we could stop creating greenhouse gases tomorrow, the climate would still change some because of our past emissions. So we need to make sure our buildings, roads, businesses, and communities are ready for the climate changes that we can't avoid. This includes things like helping cities on the coast prepare for floods, preventing wildfires in our forests, and more.

Learn how communities and companies are preparing.

The power of YOUth

Around the world, young people are learning about climate change and taking action. In fact, young people are some of the most important voices in the climate movement because you can inspire powerful people to create a better future for you.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a politician to make a difference in the fight against climate change. Whatever your talents are, there's a role for you to play. Some young people, like Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, and others, are leading the Fridays for Future movement to tell their governments to create strong policies to fight climate change. Other students are inventing new technologies to cut emissions and reduce waste. And others are using their creativity to bring awareness to climate change by writing music and creating art.

You can also look for ways to get involved in your community - maybe you can help your school set up a composting program to keep food waste out of the landfill. Maybe your synagogue or mosque needs help switching to energy efficient lights. Maybe you can write a letter to your local government to encourage your community to prepare for extreme weather or wildfires. Everyone can do something to fight climate change.

Check out our Educator Resources page for activities you can do to learn more about how climate change works and how you can be a part of the solution.
C2ES thanks the Alcoa Foundation for its support, which allowed us to develop our Climate Classroom content. As a fully independent organization, C2ES is solely responsible for its positions, programs, and publications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page will help you understand the science behind climate change, the impacts of a changing climate, and how you can help slow climate change and prepare for it. We've also created a list of resources and activities for educators and students of all ages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Ecologists used tricks from astrophysicists to count endangered orangutans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drones with thermal imaging cameras are helping to count endangered species that are hard to track.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New York State's requirement that children be vaccinated before attending public school does not violate their constitutional rights, a federal appeals court in Manhattan said on Wednesday.

In affirming the requirement's constitutionality, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also upheld a previous ruling by a federal judge that students exempted from the requirement for religious reasons can be barred from school when another child has a disease preventable by a vaccine.

The decision was the latest to go against three parents from New York City who say their religious rights were violated when their children were kept out of school as a result of the immunization policies. The parents' lawyer, Patricia Finn, said her clients planned to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

"I think the court will hear it," Ms. Finn said in a phone interview from her office in Piermont, N.Y. "The issue is very timely, it's ripe. People are very concerned about vaccines and other drugs being pushed on children." Ms. Finn said the nation's highest court had not reviewed any "significant case" dealing with mandatory vaccinations in 100 years.

In its decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel cited a Supreme Court decision from 1905 that held that compulsory vaccination was within a state's "police power."

In this case, the plaintiffs argued that a growing body of scientific evidence showed that vaccines caused more harm than good. Ms. Finn went further, saying the court ignored evidence that there was "rampant fraud" in the vaccine program. The appellate panel said that determination should be left to lawmakers.

Under state law, parents claiming religious exemptions do not have to prove that their faith opposes the use of vaccines, but must provide a written explanation of a "genuine and sincere" religious objection. School officials can accept or reject that explanation. While some states let parents claim a philosophical exemption, New York does not.

Two of the families objected to the vaccination requirements on religious grounds, but complained that their children were not allowed to attend school while another child had a disease the vaccines were designed to prevent. The panel said that the state had the constitutional right to bar unvaccinated children altogether, so doing so temporarily was "clearly constitutional."

In a prepared statement, the city's Law Department said, "We are pleased with this decision, which is in the best interest of the public health and protects city school children, their families and the broader community in which we all live."

Ms. Finn, who said she was "just a country lawyer fighting big pharma," said she and her clients would continue seeking donations from others opposed to mandatory vaccinations to fund their legal battle. She said they had received contributions of as much as $50,000 from some supporters, but had also resorted to bake sales to raise money.

"We're not hopeless," Ms. Finn said. "We're encouraged."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New York Vaccine Requirement Is Lawful, a 2nd Court Says (Published 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New York State's requirement that children be vaccinated before attending public school does not violate their constitutional rights, a federal appeals court in Manhattan said on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Hannah Ritchie and Veronika Samborska and Max Roser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much plastic ends up in the ocean? Where does it come from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Timeline: Definition & Reform - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A timeline of U.S. immigration shows how, from the 1600s to today, the United States became a nation of people from hundreds of cultures, languages and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill of Rights

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for people's individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists-a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 - the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. It's the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm others-true incitement and/or threats-is also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of the Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements-called libel-aren't protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a "state" religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

Right to Assemble, Right to Petition

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

First Amendment Court Cases

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas court's decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.
Freedom of Religion:
Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the "Lemon Test" for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause-that's the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.
Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: "This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations."

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 Black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition of the students.

Sources

The Bill of Rights; White House.
History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thousands of people are expected to attend the People's Climate Movement march in Washington, D.C. and sister cities around the world this coming weekend. They are marching because actions taken to date by governments and others are not commensurate with the scale of climate impacts - both those already borne and those projected in the years to come.

It's a good moment to reflect on the facts. What do we know about global climate change, and what impacts can we expect in the future? The following graphics speak volumes.

What is climate change?

Climate change is a long-term change in Earth's weather patterns or average climate, including temperature and precipitation. While the climate has changed in the past, we are now seeing it change at an unprecedented rate. As a result of the build-up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - due to our burning of fossil fuels, cutting down trees and other activities - global average temperature is now changing at a faster rate than at least over the past 1,000 years.

What's causing climate change?

When models only include natural drivers of climate change, such as natural variability and volcanic eruptions, they cannot reproduce the recent increase in temperature. Only when models include the increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities can they replicate the observed changes.

How have global emissions changed?

Emissions have been climbing since the Industrial Revolution, but the rate of annual emissions increase during the first 10 years of this century was almost double the rate between 1970 and 2000.

Emissions from fossil fuels and industry have seen a staggering increase in recent years - 63 percent since 1990.

Who are the biggest emitters?

From 1850 to 2011, the five major emitters-the United States, European Union, China, Russian Federation and Japan- together contributed two-thirds of the world's CO2 emissions.

Now, China has emerged as the top emitter, and China, the EU and the United States are the world's top three emitters. Together they emit more than half of total global greenhouse gases. In contrast, the 100 smallest-emitting countries collectively add up to only 3.5 percent of global emissions. Almost three-quarters of global emissions come from only 10 countries.

How much should we limit global warming?

The Paris Agreement on climate change sets a target for countries to collectively limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), with a goal of sticking to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) in order to prevent some of the worst effects of climate change. The amount of carbon emissions we can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees is known as the "carbon budget." As of 2011, the world had already blown through nearly two-thirds of the carbon budget and is on track to exceed it by 2033 if emissions continue unabated.

Where is the temperature headed?

In the absence of countries' recent emissions-reduction commitments, known as intended nationally determined contributions, or INDCs, we would see 4-5 degrees C of warming. Even if these INDCs are fully implemented, the average global temperature is still on track to increase 2.7-3.7 degrees C by 2100, according to a range of studies. That's far short of the global goal to limit warming to 1.5- 2 degrees C.

What have been some of the impacts of climate change to date?

The impacts of climate change are already occurring, and occurring everywhere. For example, climate change has already led to: more negative than positive impacts to crops, such as wheat and maize; coral bleaching and species range shifts; more frequent heat waves; coastal flooding; increased tree die-off in various regions; and a significant loss of ice mass in places like Greenland and Antarctica.

For example, as a result of ice melting on land, such as from glaciers and ice sheets, as well as thermal expansion of the ocean, we have seen sea level rise 3.4 millimeters per year from 1993-2015, which puts coastal communities at risk of flooding and infrastructure damage.

What impacts do we expect in the future?

The impacts we see in the future will be determined by our emissions pathway and resultant level of temperature increase. The warmer it gets, the greater the impacts - and the lower our ability to adapt.

Are there signs of progress?

Recently, we've seen signs of "decoupling." According to the IEA, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stayed flat for three years in a row even as the global economy grew. This flattening of emissions was due to the growth of renewable power generation, fuel switching from coal to natural gas and energy efficiency gains, among other changes.

This decoupling can also be seen at the country level in 21 nations from 2000-2014. Whether these are indicative of long-term shifts remains to be seen. We will need to see a deep decline if we are to limit dangerous climate change, and even with existing emissions-reduction commitments, global emissions are not expected to decline until at least after 2030.

Are we investing in solutions?

Global investments in renewable energy have been growing in recent years to an all-time high of $285.9 billion in 2015, a 5 percent rise compared to the previous year. In 2015, renewable energy (excluding large hydro) made up the bulk (54.6 percent) of new installed generating capacity for the first time.

That being said, we need to shift away from fossil fuels much more quickly if we are to have a fighting chance of limiting warming to 1.5-2 degrees C.

Marching for Action

Let's hope that as people take to the streets, it will wake leaders up to the scale of the climate change challenge and the task ahead. Avoiding the most dangerous of climate change impacts -- which necessitates phasing out emissions in the second half of the century -- will require sustained action well beyond this weekend's activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thousands of people are expected to attend this weekend's People's Climate Movement march. It's a good moment to reflect on the facts-what we know about climate change today, and what impacts we can expect in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is a drone and how do drones work is answered here in this easy to understand article. UAV drone technology is constantly evolving as new innovation and big investment are bringing more advanced drones to the market every few months.

Below, we discuss UAV technology on the most popular drones on the market, which have all the latest drone technology. Most UAV drones will have very similar systems incorporated.

Also included is the latest list of top drones with cameras on the market right now.

Unmanned aerial vehicle technology covers everything from the aerodynamics of the drone, materials in the manufacture of the physical UAV, to the circuit boards, chipset and software, which are the brains of the drone.

One of the most popular drones on the market is the DJI Phantom series. These drones are very popular with professional aerial cinematographers.

This Phantom UAVs are ideal to explain drone technology because they have everything in one package. It includes the UAV, gimbal and camera. They also have some of the top drone technology on the market today.

In the past few months, more new and highly advanced drones such as the DJI Mavic Mini, Mavic 2, Mavic Air 2, Phantom 4 Pro V2.0, Yuneec Typhoon H3 and Autel Evo 2 have come to the market.

The fast pace of UAV drone technological innovation is tremendous. I've included these latest drone technology advancements in the below article. So this article is right up to date including all links.

A typical unmanned aircraft is made of light composite materials to reduce weight and increase maneuverability. This composite material strength allows military drones to cruise at extremely high altitudes.

UAV drones are equipped with different state of the art technology such as infrared cameras, GPS and laser (consumer, commercial and military UAV). Drones are controlled by remote ground control systems (GSC) and also referred to as a ground cockpit.

An unmanned aerial vehicle system has two parts, the drone itself and the control system.

The nose of the unmanned aerial vehicle is where all the sensors and navigational systems are present. The rest of the body is full of drone technology systems since there is no space required to accommodate humans.

The engineering materials used to build the drone are highly complex composites designed to absorb vibration, which decrease the sound produced. These materials are very light weight.

What Is A Drone And UAV Technology

Below we examine the science and drone technology behind the DJI Phantom UAV. We also have plenty of information on the latest drone technologies from the newest drones on the market.

There are plenty of links, where you can read deeper into various components of drone technology. For example, here is a terrific drone components overview article. This gives information on the individual components seen in most drones.

Drone Types And Sizes

UAV drones come in a wide variety of sizes, with the largest being mostly used for military purposes such as the Predator drone. The next in size are unmanned aircraft, which have fixed wings and require short runways. These are generally used to cover large sections of land, working in areas such as geographical surveying or to combat wildlife poaching.

Next in size for drones are what is known as VTOL drones. These are generally quadcopters but not all. VTOL drones can take off, fly, hover and land vertically. The exact meaning of VTOL is "Vertical Take-Off and Landing".

Quite a few of the latest small UAV drones such as the DJI Mavic Air 2 take VTOL to the next level and can be launched from the palm of your hand.

Radar Positioning & Return Home

The latest drones have dual Global Navigational Satellite Systems (GNSS) such as GPS and GLONASS.

Drones can fly in both GNSS and non satellite modes. For example, DJI drones can fly in P-Mode (GPS & GLONASS) or ATTI mode, which doesn't use GPS.

Highly accurate drone navigation is very important when flying, especially in drone applications such as creating 3D maps, surveying landscape and SAR (Search & Rescue) missions.

When the quadcopter is first switched on, it searches and detects GNSS satellites. High end GNSS systems use Satellite Constellation technology. Basically, a satellite constellation is a group of satellitesworking together giving coordinated coverage and are synchronized, so that they overlap well in coverage. Pass or coverage is the period in which a satellite is visible above the local horizon.

UAV Drone GNSS On Ground Station Remote Controller

The radar technology will signal the following on the remote controller display;

Signal that enough drone GNSS satellites have been detected and the drone is ready to fly

Display the current position and location of the drone in relation to the pilot

Record the home point for 'Return To Home' safety feature

Most of the latest UAVs have 3 types of Return to Home drone technology as follows;

Pilot initiated return to home by pressing button on Remote Controller or in an app

A low battery level, where the UAV will fly automatically back to the home point

Loss of contact between the UAV and Remote Controller, with the UAV flying back automatically to its home point

The latest Mavic Air 2 technology can sense obstacles during automatic return to home.

Obstacle Detection And Collision Avoidance Technology

The latest high tech drones are now equipped with collision avoidance systems. These use obstacle detection sensors to scan the surroundings, while software algorithms and SLAM technology produce the images into 3D maps allowing the drone to sense and avoid. These systems fuse one or more of the following sensors to sense and avoid;

The DJI Mavic 2 Pro and Mavic 2 Zoom have obstacle sensing on all 6 sides. The Mavic 2 uses both Vision and Infrared sensors fused into a vision system known as omni-directional Obstacle Sensing.

The DJI Mavic 2 obstacle sensing system is top drone technology. The Mavic 2 will sense objects, then fly around obstacles in front. It can do the same when flying backwards. Or hover if it is not possible to fly around the obstacle.

This technology is known as APAS (Advanced Pilot Assistance System) on the DJI Mavic 2 and Mavic Air drones.

In December 2019, the Skydio 2 drone was released. This also has obstacle avoidance on all sides.

The Skydio 2 autonomy technology visualizes and calculates what's happening around the drone. It can then intelligently predict what will happen next and will make accurate decisions multiple times a second.

The Skydio 2 quadcopter uses 6 x 4k cameras to build a 3D map of its surroundings, which will include trees, people, animals, cars, buildings and more.

Gyroscope Stabilization, IMU And Flight Controllers

Gyro stabilization technology give the UAV drone its smooth flight capabilities.

The gyroscope works almost instantly to the forces moving against the drone, keeping it flying or hovering very smoothly. The gyroscope provides essential navigational information to the central flight controller.

The inertial measurement unit (IMU) works by detecting the current rate of acceleration using one or more accelerometers. The IMU detects changes in rotational attributes like pitch, roll and yaw using one or more gyroscopes. Some IMU include a magnetometer to assist with calibration against orientation drift.

The Gyroscope is a component of the IMU and the IMU is an essential component of the drones flight controller. The flight controller is the central brain of the drone.

Here is a terrific article, which covers gyro stabilization and IMU technology in drones.

UAV Drone Propulsion Technology

The propulsion system (motors, electronic speed controllers and propellers) are the drone technology, which move the UAV into the air and to fly in any direction or hover. On a quadcopter, the motors and propellers work in pairs with 2 motors / propellers rotating clockwise (CW Propellers) and 2 motors rotating Counter Clockwise (CCW Propellers).

They receive data from the flight controller and the electronic speed controllers (ESC) on the drone motor direction to either fly or hover.

Top UAV drone motors and propulsion systems are highly advanced and include the following components;

The Electronic Speed Controllers signal to the drone motors information on speed, braking and also provide monitoring and fault tolerance on the drone motors.

For more information, read this article on how drone motors and propulsion system work, which includes very informative videos.

Realtime Telemetry Flight Parameters

Nearly all drones have a Ground Station Controller (GSC) or a smartphone app, allowing you to fly the drone and to keep track of the current flight telemetry. Telemetry data showing on the remote controller many include UAV range, height, speed, GNSS strength, remaining battery power and warnings.

Many UAV drone ground controllers use FPV (First Person View), which transmit the video from the drone to the controller or mobile device.

No Fly Zone Drone Technology

In order to increase flight safety and prevent accidents in restricted areas, the latest drones from DJI and other manufacturers include a "No Fly Zone" feature.

The no fly zones are regulated and categorized by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Manufacturers can change the no fly zone drone technology using UAV firmware updates.

GPS Ready To Fly Mode Drone Technology

When the compass is calibrated, it then seeks the location of GPS satellites. When more than 6 are found, it allows the drone to fly in "Ready To Fly" Mode.

Internal Compass & Failsafe Function

Allows the UAV drone and remote control system to know exactly its flight location. A home point can be set and this is the location the drone will return to, if the drone and the remote control system stop connecting. This is also known as "fail-safe function".

FPV Live Video Transmission Drone Technology

FPV means " First Person View ". A video camera is mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle and this camera broadcasts the live video to the pilot on the ground. The ground pilot is flying the aircraft as if they were on-board the aircraft instead of looking at the aircraft from the pilot's actual ground position.

FPV allows the unmanned aircraft to fly much higher and further than you can from looking at the aircraft from the ground. First Person View allows for more precise flying especially around obstacles.

FPV allows unmanned aerial vehicles to fly very easily indoors, or through forests and around buildings.

The exceptionally fast growth and development of the drone racing league would not be possible without FPV live video transmission technology.

This FPV technology uses radio signal to transmit and receive the live video.

The drone has a multi-band wireless FPV transmitter built in along with an antenna. Depending on the drone, the receiver of the live video signals can be either the remote control unit, a computer, tablet or smartphone device.

This live video feed is related to the strength of the signal between the ground control on the drone.

The DJI Mavic 2 has an FPV live video range of 5 miles (8 km) with a 1080p quality video transmission.

Other, slightly older UAV drones such as the DJI Mavic and Phantom 4 Pro, can transmit live video up to 4.3 miles (7 km). The Phantom 4 Pro and Inspire 2 use the latest DJI Lightbridge 2 transmission system.

Drones such as the DJI Mavic use integrated controllers and intelligent algorithms to set a new standard for wireless high definition image transmission by lowering latency and increasing maximum range and reliability.

Live video and maximizing the range of the transmission is fascinating drone technology. Here is a tremendous article entitled " Understanding FPV Live Video Transmission ".

FPV Over 4G / LTE Networks

In 2016, a new live video, which transmits over the 4G / LTE network, providing an unlimited range and low latency video was announced. This drone technology was released on the Sky Drone FPV 2 and comprises of a camera module, a data module and a 4G / LTE modem.

Firmware And Flight Assistant Port

The flight control system communicates with a PC Assistant through a micro-USB cable. This allows configuration of the UAV and to upgrade the drone firmware.

A very simple description of a UAV drone is that it is a flying computer with a camera or sensor attached. Like computers, drones have firmware software, which send commands to the physical components in the aircraft or remote controller.

Drone manufacturers release firmware upgrades to fix bugs and add new features to the aircraft, remote control unit or software if it is used to fly the drone.

These are found at the front and the rear of the drone. Generally, drone LEDs will be green, yellow or red.

The front LED indicators light up to indicate the nose of the UAV.

The rear LEDs flight indicators light up to indicate the various status of the drone when power on, getting a firmware upgrade and flying.

It is a good to understand what the flashing LEDs on your quadcopter indicate.

All drones come with a user manual, which list what each type of flashing LED mean.

UAV Remote Control System

On the DJI Phantom 3, this is the wireless communication device using the 5.8 GHz frequency band. Remote controls systems are also known as ground control. The drone and the ground control should already be paired when it leaves the factory.

The location of the 5.8 GHz receiver technology link button is under the UAV.

Almost, all the latest drones can use 2.4 or 5.8 GHz operating frequencies.

Range Extender UAV Technology

This is a wireless communication device which generally operate within the 2.4 GHz frequency. It is used to extend the range of communication between the smartphone or tablet and the drone in an open unobstructed area.

Transmission distance can reach up to 700 meters. Each range extender has a unique MAC address and network name (SSID).

The latest DJI drones out of the box can fly with a range of up to 5 miles (8 km).

Older drones from the other top manufacturers can't fly as far as DJI drones. However, products such as range extenders are very popular, which can push the distance even further.

Smartphone App Featuring Ground Station Function

Most of the UAV drones today can be flown by a remote controller or from a smartphone app, which can be downloaded from Google Play or the Apple Store. The app allows for full control of the drone.

Each manufacturer will have their own app such as the Go 4 app from DJI.

Drones With High Performance Camera

The latest drones from DJI, Walkera, Yuneec and other manufacturers now include cameras, which can shoot film in 4k video and can take 12 megapixel stills.

The earlier drones used cameras, which were not fully suitable for aerial filming. These aerial shots had barrel distortion because of the wide angle lens.

However, the latest 4k video drones such as DJI Mavic series, DJI Inspire 1, Phantom 3 Professional and Phantom 4 have a camera which is specifically designed for aerial filming and photography.

The best drone for professional aerial filming is the DJI Inspire 2 mounted with the DJI Zenmuse X7 camera. The Inspire 2 image processing system CineCore 2.1, records video at up to 6k in CinemaDNG/RAW and 5.2k in Apple ProRes when used with the Zenmuse X7 camera.

The Inspire 2 is used by Hollywood producers. In fact, the Inspire 2 filmed all aerial and ground shots in a short film called with cinematic quality.

Drones With Zoom Cameras

In the past few years, a number of integrated gimbals with optical and digital zoom came to the market.

DJI released the Zenmuse Z3, which is an integrated aerial zoom camera and is optimized for still photography. The Zenmuse Z3, which had a 7 x zoom made up of 3.5 x optical and 2x digital lossless zoom creating a 22 to 77 mm equivalent focal length range, making it ideal for industrial applications.

DJI later released the Zenmuse Z30 camera. This powerful Zenmuse Z30 is an integrated aerial zoom camera has a 30 x optical and 6 x digital zoom for a total magnification up to 180 x.

This allows for more industrial uses such as inspecting cell towers or wind turbines to get a very detailed look at structures, wires, modules and components to detect damage. The Zenmuse is compatible with DJI Matrice range of drones.

The Walkera Voyager 4 comes with an incredible 18 x zoom camera. The 18 times optical zoom camera on the Voyager 4 has unobstructed 360 degree filming. It can film in 4k at 30 frames per second. The high definition image transmission system uses a 3-axis brushless stabilization gimbal technology.

Walkera have also released their latest Voyager 5. This has an incredible 30x optical zoom camera.

The Voyager 5 includes redundancy systems such as dual GPS, dual gyroscope and 3 battery systems. It also has optional thermal infrared and low light night vision camera.

Gimbal technology is vital to capture quality aerial photos, film or 3D imagery.

The gimbal allows the camera to tilt while in flight, creating unique angles. More importantly, the gimbal reduces camera vibration. These are mostly 3 axis stabilized gimbals with 2 working modes. Non-FPV mode and FPV mode.

Practically all the latest drones have integrated gimbals and cameras. The leader in aerial gimbal technology is DJI with their Zenmuse range. You can read further on drone gimbal design here.

Cinematography Drones Without Gimbals

At CES a few years back, a company called Ambarella announced the H22 chip for cameras in drones. This H22 chip allows the camera to film in 4k HD video and includes electronic image stabilization, removing the camera gimbal.

Drones With Sensors To Create 3D Maps And Models Using Sensor Fusion

Lidar, Multispectral and Photogrammetry sensors are being used to build 3D models of buildings and landscapes. Low light night vision and Thermal vision sensors are being used on drones to scan buildings and landscapes to assist in agriculture, firefighting, search and rescue.

Drones can carry different sensors with the software combining the data together for better results. This technology is known as sensor fusion and works as follows;

Sensor fusion is software, which intelligently combines data from several different sensors such as a thermal camera and a regular RGB camera sensor for the purpose of improving application or system performance. Combining data from multiple sensors corrects the errors from individual sensors to calculate accurate position and orientation information.

For example, multispectral sensors on drones can create Digital Elevation Maps (DEMS) of land areas to provide precision data on the health of crops, flowers, fauna, shrubs and trees.

In 2016, drones using Time-of-Flight (ToF) sensors came on the market. ToF sensors, also known as "Flash Lidar" can be used on their own or with RGB and regular lidar sensors to provide various solutions across the sectors.

ToF depth ranging camera sensors can be used for object scanning, indoor navigation, obstacle avoidance, gesture recognition, tracking objects, measure volumes, reactive altimeters, 3D photography, augmented reality games and much more.

Flash lidar Time-of-Flight cameras have a huge advantage over other technologies, as it is able to measure distances to objects within a complete scene in a single shot.

For lidar and photogrammetry mapping, the UAV is programmed to fly over an area autonomously, using waypoint navigation. The camera on the drone will take photographs at 0.5 or 1 second intervals. These photos are then stitched together using specialized photogrammetry software to create the 3D images.

DroneDeploy is one of the leaders in the creation of 3D mapping software. Their mobile app and Live Map is being used in various sectors for creating 3D maps and models. They have a specialized solution for the agriculture sector and their software will work with most of the latest drones.

Capturing high resolution images on a stabilized drone is very important. Using top photogrammetry software to process the images into real maps and models is just as important. Some of the top drone mapping software is as follows;

DroneDeploy 3D Mapping Solutions

Pix4D Mapper Photogrammetry Software

AutoDesk ReCap Photogrammetry Software

Maps Made Easy - Orthophoto and 3D Models

3DF Zephyr Photogrammetry Software

Agisoft PhotoScan Photogrammetry Software

PrecisionHawk Precision Mapper / Viewer

Open Drone Map

ESRI Drone2Map For ArcGIS

You can read a review on the above drone mapping software in this article on best photogrammetry software for 3D maps.

Helps to keep the stabilizer and camera connected to the unmanned aircraft.

Video Editing Software

Having an excellent quality video software is essential for post processing. Most of the latest drones can film in Adobe DNG raw, which mean that all the original image information is retained for later processing.

Operating Systems In Drone Technology

Most unmanned aircraft use Linux and a few MS Windows. The Linux Foundation have a project launched in 2014 called the Dronecode project.

The Dronecode Project is an open source, collaborative project which brings together existing and future open source unmanned aerial vehicle projects under a nonprofit structure governed by The Linux Foundation. The result is a common, shared open source platform for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).

Drone Security And Hacking

UAV drones in many ways are like flying computers. With an operating system, flight controllers and main boards with programmable code, they can also be hacked into. Drones have been developed to fly around seeking other drones and hacking into the drones wireless network, disconnecting the owner and take over that drone. However, there is some practical ways to protect your drone from hackers.

Latest Top Technology Drones With Camera

DJI have a huge command of the consumer and professional drone market. Here are the latest advanced UAV drones with patented technologies are the following;

DJI Mavic Air 2 - Latest small sized professional drone. Super HDR photos and video. Incredible APAS obstacle detection and avoidance and Intelligent Flight Modes

Autel Evo 2 - Latest drone with 3 choices of camera including an 8k, a 6k or a Dual 8k with FLIR thermal camera. In production now and will soon be in dealers

Skydio 2 - One of the best tracking drones in it's price range

DJI Mavic Mini - Best micro drone on the market. Weighs just 249 grams (8.78 ounces) and can film in 2.7k (2720 × 1530 at /25/30p)

DJI Mavic 2 - Available as a Pro and Zoom model. Both have 4k cameras and include collision avoidance on all sides

DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise (M2E) - Zoom or Thermal camera models. Includes special accessories such as a beacon, spotlights and loudspeaker. Designed specifically for search and rescue or similar work

DJI Phantom 4 Pro V2.0 - with "Vision" collision avoidance technology. Multi purpose drone including 4k aerial filming, photography and photogrammetry

DJI Inspire 2 - Patented design and motors. Multi purpose drone for professional 5k aerial filming, photography, photogrammetry, multispectral and thermal imaging

Yuneec Typhoon H Pro - uses the patented Intel "Realsense" collision avoidance technology. Great for professional aerial photography and filming

Walkera Voyager 5 - This latest drone from Walkera is tremendous. Camera options include 30x optical zoom, thermal infrared and also a low light night vision camera

Walkera Vitus Starlight - latest small sized consumer drone from Walkera featuring collision avoidance sensors and a low light night vision camera

DJI Matrice 600 - This commercial multirotor is an true aerial cinematography platform with options to mount 7 different Zenmuse cameras

DJI Matrice 200 Commercial Quadcopter - Redundancy with dual battery, IMU and Satellite navigation systems. You can mount 2 cameras under the quadcopter (e.g thermal and zoom camera). Also, mount a camera on top of Matrice 200, which makes surveying of bridges real easy. The Matrice 200 has 6 directions of collision avoidance using ToF laser, Ultrasonic and Vision sensors

Intelligent Flight Systems

All these latest drones have intelligent flight controllers and modes such as Follow Me, Active Tracking, Waypoints, Return To Home and others. The Phantom 4 Pro from DJI has the most autonomous intelligent flight modes of any drone. The Phantom 4 Pro has the following intelligent flight modes;

Active Track (Profile, Spotlight, Circle)

Draw Waypoints

TapFly

Terrain Follow Mode

Tripod Mode

Gesture Mode

S-Mode (Sport)

P-Mode (Position)

A-Mode (Attitude)

Beginner Mode

Course Lock

Home Lock

Obstacle Avoidance

One of the most exciting drone technologies is the ability to track subjects (people, vehicles, boats), particularly in the area of outdoor sports such as running, cycling, skiing etc. The latest drones with excellent tracking abilities is the Mavic 2 and also the latest Skydio 2 where it's tracking is so good that it never loses contact with the subject it is tracking.

These drones uses their vision systems, detection sensors, GNSS systems, flight controllers, central processing and specific software to be able to track their subject with 100 accuracy.

There are many different technologies used to track drones and you can read further on the best follow you drones here along with their tracking systems.

Drones have so many terrific uses. When you mount a camera or sensor such as LiDAR, Thermal, ToF or Multispectral, then the range of uses for drones keeps expanding. Here is an excellent list of drone uses.

Over the coming years, drones will transform our cities, revolutionizing how people travel, how goods are delivered and how buildings look and are constructed.

Learning To Build And Code Drones

There are terrific drones, drone kits, along with online material, which show you how to build and code UAVs. There are lots of programming languages, which are very easy to learn such as Scratch, Swift, Blockly and Tynker to code a drone. You can also program drones using text based languages such as Python and JavaScript.

There are various applications, which allow you to configure components of drones such as calibration of the IMU and the rotation of the drone motors.

These educational drones are very reasonably priced and have everything to build and code a drone. You can learn about these top educational drones here.

Top Drone Technology Videos

Below I have 2 videos which explain more about drone technology. The first video is by top UAV scientist Raffaello D'Andrea who gives us a terrific understanding of the software science behind UAV technology. He discusses the science of algorithms, control theory and model based design.

The below video explains both the present and future of science and technology behind military unmanned aerial vehicles such as the Predator and the Reaper.

Two medium sized military drones, which are currently in use are the MQ-1B Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper. These were widely used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The most expensive with the highest drone technology is the RQ-4 Global Hawk, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and L3 Comm. It has an approximate price of USD 100 million.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft system with an integrated sensor suite, which provides intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities worldwide.

Here is an excellent article, which covers the top 10 military drones with many of the top military drones being manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.

Personally, I am much more fascinated by the drone technology and its uses in everyday life to assist with saving lives in search and rescue, site surveying by many sectors, aerial cinematography or just to fly for fun by the hobbyist.

Up to a few years ago, much of the technology from military drones made their way into the consumer and business drones.

In the past few years, we have seen massive investment in drones especially in the business and consumer drone sector. Drone technology and innovation has really leaped forwarded in the past few years.

This last video is a quick look around the RQ-4 Global Hawk military ISR drone.

Read more terrific drone articles from the below categories;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Do Drones Work And What Is Drone Technology - DroneZon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How drones work, what is a drone and drone technology explained. Also, how drones with cameras and sensors are used by photographers, in conservation, business and military

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The risks, the misinformation, and the science behind history's greatest life saver. "Vaccines Work. Here Are the Facts." is published by Maki Naro in The Nib.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers? This video is a collaboration with UN Environment and their Clean Seas campaign, If you want to take action to turn the tide on plastics, go to cleanseas and make your pledge. We also partnered with askscience on reddit - on you can talk to experts and ask questions about about plastic pollution today!

Sources used in the video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modern life would be impossible without plastic - but we have long since lost control over our invention. Why has plastic turned into a problem and what do we know about its dangers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. immigration law is based on the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed and functions.

The body of law governing U.S. immigration policy is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens' spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21. In addition, each year the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Once a person obtains an immigrant visa and comes to the United States, they become a lawful permanent resident (LPR). In some circumstances, noncitizens already inside the United States can obtain LPR status through a process known as "adjustment of status."

LPRs are eligible to apply for nearly all jobs (i.e., jobs not legitimately restricted to U.S. citizens) and can remain in the country permanently, even if they are unemployed. After residing in the United States for five years (or three years in some circumstances), LPRs are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. It is impossible to apply for citizenship through the normal process without first becoming an LPR.

Each year the United States also admits a variety of noncitizens on a temporary basis. Such "non-immigrant" visas are granted to everyone from tourists to foreign students to temporary workers permitted to remain in the country for years. While certain employment-based visas are subject to annual caps, other non-immigrant visas (including tourist and student visas) have no numerical limits.

I. Family-Based Immigration

Family unification is an important principle governing U.S. immigration policy. The family-based immigration system allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to bring certain family members to the United States. Family-based immigrants are admitted either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through the family preference system.

An unlimited number of visas are available every year for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Prospective immigrants in this category must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. Immediate relatives are:

spouses of U.S. citizens;

unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (under 21 years old); and

parents of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent).

A limited number of visas are available every year under the family preference system. Prospective immigrants in the family preference system must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. The family preference system includes:

adult children (married and unmarried) and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a sibling); and

spouses and unmarried children (minor and adult) of LPRs.

In order to balance the overall number of immigrants arriving based on family relationships, Congress established a complicated system for calculating the available number of family preference visas for any given year. The number is determined by starting with 480,000 (the maximum number in principle allocated for all family-based immigrants) and then subtracting the number of immediate relative visas issued during the previous year and the number of aliens "paroled" into the United States during the previous year. Any unused employment preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are then added to this total to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the family preference system. However, by law, the number of family-based visas allocated through the preference system may not be lower than 226,000. The number of immediate relatives often exceeds 250,000 in a given year and triggers the 226,000 minimum for preference visas. As a result, the total number of family-based visas often exceeds 480,000. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, family-based immigrants comprised 68.8 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

The family-based immigration system is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Family-Based Immigration System

Immediate Relatives

U.S. Citizen adults

Spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents

* Plus any unused visas from the 4th preference.

** Plus any unused visas from 1st and 2nd preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the all other family-based preferences.

Worldwide level of family preference allocation: 480,000 minus visas issued to immediate relatives and parolees, plus unused employment-visas from previous fiscal year. Floor for preference categories: 226,000.

Source: William A. Kandel, Permanent Legal Migration to the United States, (CRS Report No. R42866) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42866.pdf.

In order to be admitted through the family-based immigration system, a U.S. citizen or LPR sponsor must petition for an individual relative, establish the legitimacy of the relationship, meet minimum income requirements, and sign an affidavit of support stating that the sponsor will be financially responsible for the family member(s) upon arrival in the United States or adjustment to LPR status within the United States. The individual relative also must meet certain eligibility requirements that include submitting to a medical exam and obtaining required vaccinations (including a COVID-19 vaccination), an analysis of any immigration or criminal history, as well as demonstrating that they will not become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.

The spouses and children who accompany or follow the principal immigrant (the one sponsored by the U.S. citizen or LPR under the family-preference category) are referred to as derivative immigrants. Derivative immigrants also count toward the numerical caps for the categories in Table 1. That means that many of the visa slots allotted for members of these categories are often actually used by the spouses and children of the members. For example, in FY 2019, 61,031 people were admitted in the category "brothers and sisters" of U.S. citizens, but only 22,179 of them were actual brothers or sisters of U.S. citizens. The rest were spouses (14,956) and children (23,896) of the siblings of U.S. citizens.

II. Employment-Based Immigration

The United States provides various ways for immigrants with valuable skills to come to the country on either a permanent or a temporary basis.

Temporary Visa Classifications

Temporary employment-based visa classifications permit employers to hire and petition for foreign nationals for specific jobs for limited periods. Most temporary workers must work for the employer that petitioned for them and have limited ability to change jobs. There are more than 20 types of visas for temporary nonimmigrant workers. These include L-1 visas for intracompany transfers; various P visas for athletes, entertainers, and skilled performers; R-1 visas for religious workers; various A visas for diplomatic employees; O-1 visas for workers of extraordinary ability; and various H visas for both highly skilled and lesser-skilled workers. The visa classifications vary in terms of their eligibility requirements, duration, whether they permit workers to bring dependents, and other factors. In most cases, these workers must leave the United States if their status expires or if their employment is terminated. It may be possible, depending on the type of job and the foreign national's qualifications, for an employer to sponsor the worker for permanent employment. A foreign national does not have to be working for the employer in order to be sponsored. However, depending on the permanent immigration category sought and the foreign national's current nonimmigrant category, he or she may be able to complete the steps to become an LPR while continuing to live and work in the United States.

Permanent Immigration

The overall numerical limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000 per year. This number includes the immigrants plus their eligible spouses and minor unmarried children, meaning the actual number of employment-based immigrants is less than 140,000 each year. Any unused family preference immigrant numbers from the preceding year are added to this cap to establish the number of visas that are available for allocation through the employment-based system. The total number of available visas is then divided into five preference categories. For some categories, the sponsor must first test the U.S. labor market under terms and conditions established by the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor must certify that the petitioner's application meets certain requirements before the sponsor may file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). For some categories, the sponsor's first step is to file a petition with USCIS or the foreign national may self-petition. The final step is the foreign national's application for an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad or an application to adjust status to LPR if in lawful status in the United States. For consular processing, the immigrant visa application cannot be filed until after USCIS approves the immigrant petition. For adjustment of status, the time to file the application depends on whether a visa number is considered to be immediately available.

The employment-based immigration system is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Permanent Employment-Based Preference System

Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or "other" workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal.

40,040***

"Other" unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000

*Plus any unused visas from the 4th and 5th preferences.

**Plus any unused visas from the 1st preference.

***Plus any unused visas from the 1st and 2nd preference.

Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants: 140,000 for principal applicants and their dependents.

Source: Ruth Ellen Wasem, U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2012), 4, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32235.pdf.

In FY 2019, immigrants admitted through the employment preferences made up 13.5 percent of all new LPRs in the United States.

III. Per-Country Ceilings

In addition to the numerical limits placed on the various immigration preference categories, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based combined) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration flows to the United States.

IV. Refugees and Asylees

Refugees are admitted to the United States based upon an inability to return to their home countries because of a "well-founded fear of persecution" due to their race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. Refugees apply for admission from outside of the United States, generally from a "transition country" that is outside their home country. The admission of refugees turns on numerous factors, such as the degree of risk they face, membership in a group that is of special concern to the United States (designated yearly by the president and Congress), and whether or not they have family members in the United States.

Each year, the president, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. The overall cap is broken down into limits for each region of the world. After September 11, 2001, the number of refugees admitted into the United States fell drastically. After the Bush administration put new security checks in place, annual refugee admissions returned to their previous levels and rose during the Obama administration. During the Trump administration, the refugee ceiling fell sharply, from 110,000 in FY 2017 to 45,000 in FY 2018 and 30,000 in FY 2019. For FY 2020, the ceiling was set at an all-time low of 18,000-although only 11,814 were actually admitted (the lowest number of admitted refugees since the system was created in 1980.) The FY 2021 ceiling was set at 15,000 by the Trump administration, but was subsequently raised to 62,500 by the Biden administration. However, as of August 31, 2021, only 7,637 refugees had been admitted with just one month remaining in the current fiscal year.

Of the 62,500 admissions determined by the president for FY 2021, the regional allocations are shown in Table 3 below. Given the slow pace of admissions, it is unlikely that any of these allocations will be met.
Table 3: Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions, FY 2021
Asylum is available to persons already in the United States who are seeking protection based on the same five protected grounds upon which refugees rely. They may apply at a port of entry at the time they seek admission or within one year of arriving in the United States. There is no limit on the number of individuals who may be granted asylum each year, nor are there specific categories for determining who may seek asylum. In FY 2019, 46,508 individuals were granted asylum.

Refugees and asylees are eligible to become LPRs one year after admission to the United States as a refugee or one year after receiving asylum.

V. The Diversity Visa Program

The Diversity Visa Program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990 as a dedicated channel for immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Each year, 55,000 visas are allocated randomly through a computer-generated lottery to nationals from countries that have sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years. Of the 55,000, up to 5,000 are made available for use under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act program, created in 1997 to provide relief to certain asylum seekers who applied for asylum before a specific date. This results in a reduction of the actual annual diversity visa limit to 50,000. The program was originally intended to favor immigration from Ireland (during the first three years of the program at least 40 percent of the visas were exclusively allocated to Irish immigrants). Diversity visas are now distributed on a regional basis and benefit Africans and Eastern Europeans in particular.

To be eligible for a diversity visa, potential applicants from qualifying countries must have a high-school education (or its equivalent) or have, within the past five years, a minimum of two years working in a profession requiring at least two years of training or experience. Spouses and minor unmarried children of the principal applicant may also enter as derivatives.

Immigration bans implemented by the Trump administration effectively shut down the Diversity Visa Program in 2020 and left roughly 43,000 of that year's lottery winners without their visas. Those 2020 lottery winners who did not receive visas by the end of the fiscal year lost their chance to immigrate to the United States, prompting some of them to file lawsuits against the federal government in an effort to obtain their visas. Although the Biden administration subsequently lifted the immigration bans, the Diversity Visa Program has resumed at a very slow pace. By the end of June 2021, the State Department had issued only 3,094 diversity visas for FY 2021. Some FY 2021 lottery winners have filed lawsuits demanding that the State Department issue their visas before the end of the fiscal year.

VI. Other Forms of Humanitarian Relief

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is is granted to people who are in the United States but cannot return to their home country because of "natural disaster," "extraordinary temporary conditions," or "ongoing armed conflict." TPS is granted to a country for six, twelve, or eighteen months and can be extended beyond that if unsafe conditions in the country persist. TPS does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) provides protection from deportation for individuals whose home countries are unstable, therefore making return dangerous. Unlike TPS, which is authorized by statute, DED is at the discretion of the executive branch. DED does not necessarily lead to LPR status or confer any other immigration status.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program established in 2012 which permits certain individuals who were brought to the United States while under the age of 16 and who have resided continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007, to remain in the United States and work lawfully for at least two years, so long as they have no significant criminal record and have graduated high school or college or received a degree equivalent. It does not confer any path to permanent legal status and requires renewal every two years. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end DACA, but this action was challenged in court. In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's attempt to terminate the program was unlawful. The Trump administration subsequently tried to impose new limits on DACA, but this action was also challenged in court and a federal judge in New York ordered the administration to set aside the newly imposed limits. Separately, a federal judge in Texas ruled that DACA was unlawful and that no new, first-time applications should be accepted. In January 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum reaffirming the federal government's commitment to DACA and pledging to appeal the Texas ruling.

Humanitarian parole allows certain individuals to enter the United States, even though they may not meet the definition of a refugee and may not be eligible to immigrate through other channels. Parolees may be admitted temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.

VII. U.S. Citizenship

In order to qualify for U.S. citizenship through naturalization, an individual must have had LPR status (a green card) for at least five years (or three years if he or she obtained the green card through a U.S.-citizen spouse or through the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA). There are other exceptions including, but not limited to, members of the U.S. military who serve in a time of war or declared hostilities. Applicants for U.S. citizenship must be at least 18 years old, demonstrate continuous residency, demonstrate "good moral character," pass English and U.S. history and civics exams (with certain exceptions), and pay an application fee, among other requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the United States Immigration System Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. This fact sheet provides basic information about how the U.S. legal immigration system is designed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are-and aren't-protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word "parrhesia" means "free speech," or "to speak candidly." The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn't specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn't be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court's conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn't Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren't protected include:

Obscene material such as child pornography

Plagiarism of copyrighted material

Defamation (libel and slander)

True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren't protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called "content neutrality." Content neutrality means the government can't censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn't bite-they ruled in favor of the students' right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don't apply in private schools.

Sources

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts.
Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts.
Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech - Origins, First Amendment & Limits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The leaders of the Republic of Fiji and Republic of the Marshall Islands issue a renewed call for commitment by the world's nations to efforts to combat climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You might be using your drone (or thinking about getting a drone) for epic vacation shots and ultra-romantic wedding videos, but you should be thinking bigger. What if, instead of taking pictures of you, your drone could help you monitor hundreds of acres of crops? What if it could photograph a building's flaws? And what if it could fix those flaws or water those crops as soon as it spotted them?

Just as self-driving cars could fundamentally rearchitect the way cities work, drones have a disruptive potential that's hard to overstate. They could change the way people and goods are transported (where we're going, we don't need roads!), eliminate some jobs and create others, and upend the way we think about distance. Drones could bring the internet to people who don't have it, deliver food and medicine to people who need it, and cast a watchful eye over anyone and everyone. Drones are even inspiring new sports! The nascent industry also provides a helpful reminder that regulators and inventors need to work together to make tech actually function, because there are some seriously scary downsides to a world where drones fill the sky.

We're at the very beginning of the drone revolution. The GoPro sticking off the bottom of your Phantom is an early version of something smarter, faster, and more thoughtful. Nobody quite knows yet how these miniature flying objects will integrate into our lives and skies. But self-driving vehicles will be in the sky long before they're commonplace on land-and what happens up there might be just as important.

A gizmo you might call a "drone" could actually fall into a couple of broad categories. One is a fully autonomous vehicle that flies without any human intervention at all. The other is more like a remote-control flier: A pilot is still in charge, but they're on the ground watching the drone, or in a room somewhere watching on a computer screen or through a pair of goggles. The two types involve different tech with different potentials, but they both count as drones. So we'll consider them, for the purposes of this guide, one and the same.

The general idea of drones has been around for more than a century. It's not a terribly novel concept, really: We've invented all these cool ways to fly around, but many of them are dangerous, so wouldn't it be great if humans didn't need to be sitting inside? You could point to Nikola Tesla's 1898 demonstration of "teleautomation," in which he remotely controlled a small boat over radio frequencies. Or to Charles Kettering, who built the "Kettering Bug," a World War I-era automated missile. Maybe it was the Queen Bee, the first reusable unmanned aerial vehicle, which the British military used in the 1930s for military target practice.

Wherever the idea began, drones were primarily a military project for decades. They were perfect surveillance tools, small and nimble enough to avoid detection while flying over enemy territory-and if they were detected and destroyed, the only cost was building another one. Later, soldiers began attaching bombs to the drones, allowing them to spot and destroy their target in a single move. The Predator drone, conceived in the 1990s and flown for millions of hours since then, has changed the way the US fights wars, both for better and for worse. It keeps US troops out of harm's way, but it also removes them from the in-the-moment decisions of war. Predator strikes can be incredibly precise, but they have killed hundreds of civilians. Drone warfare has been hotly debated since its inception-it's both a technological debate and a moral one, a sort of Trolley Problem for the skies.

On the consumer side, drones rose from a community of remote-control airplane fliers. In the late 2000s, some hobbyists figured out that their phones contained all the parts they needed for a kickass autopilot system, so they started rigging their phones to their planes and letting one pilot the other. Others bought the individual parts-an accelerometer for measuring movement, a gyroscope for directional orientation, a small processor to keep everything running-and built them straight into their devices. Since phones were improving so fast, these parts were becoming cheaper, better, and more battery-friendly. Pretty soon, anyone with basic coding knowledge and an afternoon to kill could buy a kit and build their very own drone.

Smartphone Parts In Your Drone

A small sensor used to detect which direction your device is facing. Makes sure your drone moves exactly as much as you want it to.

A tiny motion detector that can measure how fast you're moving and in what direction. Helps keep your drone aloft and in place.

Without all those satellites, your drone would have no idea where it is or where it's heading.

The computer that makes everything work gets faster and more power-efficient every year, and the same companies that make them are making drone-specific ones now too.

Every improvement in resolution and computation also makes your drone smarter, safer, and more autonomous.

Until a few years ago, though, nobody would have thought of drones as regular-person toys. The few buyable products still cost thousands of dollars, basically required a PhD to fly, and were used for things like filming blockbuster movies. Then, in 2010, Parrot showed up at CES and wowed the tech industry conference with the AR Drone. Parrot's quadcopter was controlled by an iPhone or iPod Touch, had cameras on the front and back for capturing awesome aerial footage, and transformed piloting a drone into something like an augmented-reality game. Most important, the AR Drone was easy to fly. Parrot had included all those smartphone sensors and used them to program the AR Drone to keep itself stable. You still had to direct the drone around, but it kept itself steady and aloft. That was huge.

It was in 2013 that consumer drones really began to-ahem-take off. That's when a company called Dà-Jiāng Innovations Science and Technology Co. Ltd, better known as DJI, introduced the Phantom. DJI had spent the previous few years building software it hoped would power lots of drones, but found the hardware wanting. So CEO Frank Wang and his team built their own: a white 2.2-pound quadcopter ready to fly right out of the box. The Phantom could perform clever preprogrammed stunts and camera tricks at the touch of a button, and even if you screwed up it was programmed to automatically fly back to you. DJI made the first drone that wasn't a toy or a tool. It was both and then some. And it immediately made DJI the most important name in drones.

Since the first Phantom, everything has changed and nothing has. Drone companies developed new and better drones with new and better features, new and better cameras, and new and better safety elements. Some built bigger drones that could carry better cameras or carry small packages; others built tiny drones, just toys really, that cost less than a Lightning cable. You can now buy a drone that works underwater or takes off from the back of a dune buggy. The smartphone boom continued to fuel drone innovation, and Intel and Qualcomm even began to work on drone-specific chips and software. Drones gained the ability to automatically avoid obstacles, to stay steady in strong winds, and to fly further and higher for longer. Right now you can get a drone with a 4K camera, 30 minutes of battery life, and a range of more than four miles, that can hover autonomously and avoid obstacles without your help, for about $1,000.

Guess who makes that drone: DJI. No matter how fast the market changes, DJI keeps winning. From the ridiculously powerful Matrice line to the more entry-level Spark, nobody makes better drones. And nobody sells more, either: DJI owns as much as 70 percent of the drone market. The list of its failed competitors continues to grow. 3D Robotics (which was founded by former WIRED editor-in-chief Chris Anderson) and GoPro both made big entries into the drone business, and both failed to best DJI. Startups like Lily Robotics and Zano fell apart before even getting close. Even Parrot has mostly given up on drones. DJI's only real competitor, Yuneec, shares most of DJI's advantages: It's based near its factories and research facilities in China and can simply work faster and more effectively as a result.

The personal drone market is not smartphone-level huge-the FAA expects that 4.3 million hobbyist drones will be sold in 2020-but it's growing fast. And, ultimately, you and your kids taking epic videos in the park will only be a tiny slice of the pie. The skies may one day be filled with drones, but they'll mostly be flown for business reasons. Probably. Hard to say, right now. There's one big question left to answer before anyone can get busy inventing the future.

If you want to panic a drone enthusiast, just say these three words: Federal, Aviation, and Administration. The FAA's job is to regulate the skies, making sure everything that flies does so responsibly. Over the past few years, the agency has taken a keen, somewhat wary, interest in drones. It has slowly rolled out new regulations for how users can fly drones and what those drones can do. Ultimately, FAA rules and not the tech itself will decide what drones can accomplish.

For instance: Unmanned drones being used for commercial purposes currently cannot weigh more than 55 pounds, which rules out drone taxis and huge cargo ships. Anything you're flying has to stay in your line of sight, and operators can only control one drone at a time, so companies won't be able to command their fleets from an office. You can only fly during the day, and never in congested or sensitive areas. (The FAA does grant waivers to these rules on a case-by-case basis, though, so your diapers-by-drone delivery service can skirt the rules in some cases.) These rules have led drone-curious companies to test their products outside the US, where regulations are either looser or nonexistent.

There's more regulation to come in the next several years, and the FAA in May authorized 10 pilot projects around the country that will test various buzz-worthy schemes. For now, let's imagine the most wide-open regulatory scenario, in which drone operators can do just about anything they want. Almost immediately, drones will start to perform new tasks and capabilities. Ever since Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos debuted Prime Air on 60 Minutes, anyone who delivers anything now wants to do it with drones. Amazon has been testing Prime Air by flying small packages into a few customers' yards in the UK, and is hoping for a broader rollout soon. Meanwhile, Domino's is dropping pizzas all over New Zealand and Zipline is bringing medicine to rural areas of Rwanda (and angling for work in the US). UPS is looking into delivering your package by driving a truck into your neighborhood and then dispersing a fleet of (presumably brown, shorts-wearing) drones to each individual house. Then they'd fly back to the truck and charge up on the way to the next neighborhood. Drones can go into unreachable or unsafe areas to assess the situation or drop off necessary supplies. They helped repair power lines in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria battered the island. Almost anywhere humans cannot or simply don't want to go, a drone can zip over and look around.

You can't fly higher than 400 feet, and you always have to be able to see your drone.

You can't fly in or capture footage of other people's property.

Any "sensitive infrastructure or property," like government buildings or power stations, is a no-go zone for your drone.

If you're within five miles of an airport or heliport, you might have more complications.

Don't drink and drone.

It won't just be one drone, either. Researchers and engineers are already starting to think of drones as "swarms," looking at how birds and insects fly in order to see how dozens or hundreds of drones might be able to work in concert. They could carry more cargo or split up inspection work, generally acting as a many-headed whole instead of a bunch of individual flying objects. Already, drone masses have been used in a Super Bowl halftime show and to assess damage and plan repairs in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

More prosaically, real estate companies are using drones to shoot promotional footage and filmmakers have used them to reinvent the chase scene. A flying camera provides a useful view for the media, for wedding videos, and more. It's a valuable inspection tool, too, able to quickly traverse a bridge or field looking for problems-and, pretty soon, the same drone will fix those problems too. Drone racing is growing fast, and even shows up on ESPN-it's an awesome spectator sport, because you get to watch from a first person perspective, as if you're flying yourself. Sadly, the more sci-fi use cases are a ways off, like drone taxis that can scoop you up from your front door.

It's worth mentioning that anti-drone products are coming along just as fast as drones themselves. You can already buy a drone that catches other drones, a shotgun shell that releases weights and nets to drag drones down, or even a radio-frequency jammer that prevents them from flying at all. Researchers have even enlisted falcons and other birds of prey to attack and disable drones. The debate over what to do about a drone's ability to violate people's privacy or invade their space has led to an arms race of sorts: the drone-makers are trying to make their products fly higher and faster, while others try to keep them grounded.

There are plenty of reasons for people to worry: a camera that flies will soon do more than just take pictures. The camera in your phone is learning to recognize your face, to enable augmented reality, even to see in the dark with thermal or infrared imaging. This is another place where regulation matters: drones can already spot an individual person from thousands of feet up, and the Big Brother implications are terrifying. Drones, like anything else, can be used for spying and tracking and all sorts of privacy violations. Still, those same cameras will enable better flight, more fun features and games, and new uses for drones beyond what anyone has even thought of. Every time your phone's camera gets a little smarter and sharper, so does your drone.

President Trump Moves to Fill America's Skies with Drones
In October of 2017, President Donald Trump signed a memo that directed the Department of Transportation to start working on determining how businesses ought to use drones in US airspace. It's big for delivery companies, big for everyone working on farms and in the insurance biz, and a step toward the long-term regulations the drone industry is waiting for. While you're at it, maybe go ahead and register yours as well.

This guide was last updated on May 17, 2018. Enjoyed this deep dive? Check out more WIRED Guides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You might be using your drone (or thinking about getting a drone) for epic vacation shots and ultra-romantic wedding videos, but you should be thinking bigger. What if, instead of taking pictures of you, your drone could help you monitor hundreds of acres of crops? What if it could photograph a building's flaws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Diseases and How to Protect Against Them

Measles causes fever, rash, cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes. Complications can include ear infection, diarrhea, pneumonia, brain damage, and death.

Mumps causes fever, headache, muscle aches, tiredness, loss of appetite, and swollen salivary glands. Complications can include swelling of the testicles or ovaries, deafness, inflammation of the brain and/or tissue covering the brain and spinal cord (encephalitis/meningitis), and, rarely, death.

Rubella causes fever, sore throat, rash, headache, and red, itchy eyes. If a woman gets rubella while she is pregnant, she could have a miscarriage or her baby could be born with serious birth defects.

Varicella (chickenpox) causes blister-like rash, itching, fever, and tiredness. Complications can include severe skin infection, scars, pneumonia, brain damage, or death.

You can protect against these diseases with safe, effective vaccination.

MMRV Vaccine Side Effects

The MMRV vaccine is very safe, and it is effective at preventing measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella. Vaccines, like any medicine, can have side effects. Most people who get MMRV vaccine do not have any serious problems with it. Getting MMRV vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps, rubella, or varicella.

Some children who get MMRV vaccine may have a seizure caused by fever ( febrile seizure) after getting the shot. However, these seizures are not common and have not been associated with any long-term problems.

Rarely, the MMRV vaccine can cause swelling of neck or cheeks or a temporary low platelet count.

Extremely rarely, the vaccine's ingredients cause severe allergic (anaphylactic) reactions. Children should not get MMRV vaccine if they have ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine, including gelatin or the antibiotic neomycin.

Available MMRV Vaccine

There is one MMRV vaccine approved for use in the United States.

How CDC Monitors Vaccine Safety

CDC and FDA monitor the safety of vaccines after they are approved or authorized. If a problem is found with a vaccine, CDC and FDA will inform health officials, health care providers, and the public.

CDC uses 3 systems to monitor vaccine safety:

A Closer Look at the Safety Data

Before the MMRV vaccine was licensed for use in the United States, researchers studied the vaccine in children aged 12 to 23 months old. The studies found that rash and a fever of 102°F or higher happened more often during the 42 days after the first dose of MMRV vaccine compared with separate injections of MMR and varicella vaccines. There is no increased risk of febrile seizures after vaccination with MMRV vaccine in children aged 4 through 6 years. Febrile seizures have not been associated with any long-term effects.

Soreness from the shot was reported less often after MMRV vaccine than after MMR and varicella vaccines given in separate shots at the same visit. For more information, see "Results from Studies Before MMRV Vaccine Was Licensed."

More Resources

MMRV Vaccine Information Statement

MMRV Vaccine: Who Should Not Get Vaccinated

Two Options for Protecting Your Child Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Safety

Varicella Vaccine Safety

Q&As About the Options for Protecting Your Child Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella

Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers: MMR & Varicella Vaccines or MMRV Vaccine - Discussing Options with Parents

Q&As About Vaccination Options for Preventing Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella: Questions and Answers for Healthcare Providers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
measles mumps rubella varicella vaccine safety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
chickenpox measles and mumps side effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
combination measles mumps rubella varicella vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella Vaccines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Measles causes fever, rash, cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes. Complications can include ear infection, diarrhea, pneumonia, brain damage, and death. Mumps causes fever, headache, muscle aches, tiredness, loss of appetite, and swollen salivary glands. Complications can include swelling of the testicles or ovaries, deafness, inflammation of the brain and/or tissue covering the brain and spinal cord (encephalitis/meningitis), and, rarely, death.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Be Smart | How Much Plastic is in the Ocean? | Season 5 | Episode 10 | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ocean plastic pollution is a massive environmental problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
If you need legal advice on immigration law, please contact an attorney.

My grandparents were refugees at the time of partition in India from, what is now, Pakistan to present India. They worked long and hard days doing blue-collar jobs so that my parents would have a better chance at life. My parents chose to honor their sacrifices by seeking a better life in the United States. We came to this country because my mother had a fellowship. We landed with just over $800 in NYC. My father's MBA was not accredited in the United States so eventually he went back to school to repeat his degree. They recognized that the caste system in the US is based on where you go to school so they sent my sister and I to the best high schools and then the best colleges. I am now in law school working to make sure our systems provide everyone with a fair shot at success and my sister is teaching English helping the next generation learn empathy. We honor the sacrifices of our family by trying to make the world a better place. We believe that the promise of America can be a reality for all of us. We are Americans.
Aditi
New York, NY

My father was a bracero. He suffered a lot. He was far from his family in Mexico but convinced a good religious man to build a home for his family and brought his family home to the United States. Years later, my mother cleaned others people's homes and ironed other people's clothes: neighbors' homes and clothes, in a middle class neighborhood in a home my father purchased. I stand proud every day because of them. I am proud to be an immigrant.
Graciela
Los Angeles

After my family got a visa in Yemen, I was so glad that I would be going to the USA. All my family were happy for us but most of them were crying at the time we left. We left Yemen during the beginning of the revolution to change the president. Since then people are suffering from lack of food resources. Each year it gets worse. My father told us that we would not stay for a long time in NYC but since the war started in Yemen it's not safe anymore. We couldn't go back so we decided to stay. So for two years we have been hoping that Yemen will get better and it will be safe so we can go back and see my family after five years of being expatriates.
Basam

My dad was born in 1968 in Saigon, Vietnam during the Vietnam War. At that time grandpa was a soldier fighting for the South in the Vietnam War. My dad was 7 at the time when my grandfather was taken to a camp that was owned by the communists and was kept as a prisoner of war. He returned 10 years after when my dad was 17 years old and my dad's family opened up a salon. In 1993, when my dad was 24 years old, my dad and his whole family received airplane tickets to America to escape the communist takeover in Vietnam. My dad and his family chose to settle in California because he heard the weather was nice and there was a lot of job opportunities in San Jose. When my dad first arrived in America. They lived in an apartment in Blossom Hill. His first job was in electronic assembling. He says getting the job was easy since he had a friend who helped him. He wanted to learn the English language because he says living in America without knowing most of the words was difficult so he went to West Valley College for two years to learn English. Everyone has their own immigrant story.
Kelly
CA

I'm lucky. I'm 16, live in a small town and I am a daughter of an immigrant. Growing in a small town, when 96 percent of the population is white is tough. You turn white. Sure, the color of my skin will never be the color of a piece of printer paper but inside it feels like I'm all white. I guess the word "anchor baby" defines me.... sort of. I'm the president of debate club, where we talk about bills, current news topics, and political nominees. The hardest topic... Is immigration reform. People are so uninformed.. "Yes I believe we should deport all undocumented immigrants here, and they should get in line with all the other people to get their papers... LEGALLY" I find that easier said than done. I haven't seen my father since I was 8 and only spoken to him on the telephone. He was deported in 2009. The last day I saw him was in a train station... And I had no idea why I was saying good bye... and why everyone was crying. When my friends came over and asked where my father was I said he was "working". Every year on my birthday he calls me and I try hard not to cry because I know it's another year of him not being able to see me grow. My mother is a single mom. Terrified of being deported. Just a couple weeks ago she was caught. She was driving to work when a police officer pulled her over because she wasn't wearing her seat belt. For anyone else it's just a ticket. For a single mother that is illegal it's "I have to go to court, I have to show identification... They will find out I am illegal.. I will be deported... I have to call my lawyer... Who will take care of my daughters? " I hate seeing my mother in constant fear. I hate hearing family members and friends calling us to be careful because in Hudson ICE was seen deporting families. She's scared. I'm scared. We're all scared. Living the American dream shouldn't consist of being scared every second of the day.
E.G.
Albany, New York

I came to the United States as a child. My dad is a resident alien but could never fix my situation.
Since I have been here I've formed a family of my own. I don't know anything about Mexico because I was raised here and I find myself scared to be deported to a place that I do not know.
Gonzalo
South Bay, Florida

My parents moved to America when I was a year old and my sister was 2 1/2. I have 2 younger siblings who are born in America. Sometimes I hate how unknowingly privileged they are. They get free doctor and dentist visits while I haven't been to the doctor since I was 8 years old. I did not know about immigration until recently and I cried for days. My father, mother, sister, and I all have our passports. I am now 16 years old and counselors are telling me to start looking for college. My sister is a senior and she recently found out that we cannot apply for FAFSA. I don't know how I'm going to pay for college and I want to be an engineer. I don't even have my workers permit and it sucks to see everyone else getting jobs and licenses when I'm just stuck. I feel so helpless and sometimes I wonder why my parents even decided to come here. There is nothing for us here.
A Dreamless Child
Indiana

I came to the U.S. When I was 1 year old along with my 2 older brothers and my mom. My dad was working in the U.S. at the time so he never really had the chance to see me when I was born. My parents have had to go through so much just us. I admire them so much. They came to America seeking a future. I never went hungry. We came here with a tourist visa. I am 17 years old now and I want to travel the world but sadly I can't. There are so many risk factors that come with being an immigrant but my parents always managed to cope with them.
Maria
New Jersey

I never knew being illegal holds you back from many things you can do here in the states. I've been illegal all my life but found out when I was 15. I came to the United States when I was 5. I lived the life of a normal kid with school and friends and just being a kid. When I got older I couldn't get a normal job or even go to school or even get my first car. It is hard and it keeps getting harder for some reason. I'm 24 and don't really know where to turn to.
Jose
Orlando FL

I went to N.Y. in 2004 where I met my child's father. I stayed 90 days, came home then went back and fell pregnant in August 2005. I left of my own accord went back twice in 2006 then again in 2007. When I went to the US last month with my 9yr old whose father is an American citizen I was denied entry on the grounds of an overstay in the past. My child was seeing her father on father's day and meeting her brothers and great grandma. I am absolutely disgusted as to what they put my child through. Border control said get a visa you'll be back in 5 days. I don't know who to speak to what to do. The US consulate won't answer calls. I feel when you find yourself in a situation like this you need to speak to a human being not an automated service. I'm so tired been trying to fix this to no avail. The money for flights was a waste of £1000. I think it's disgusting.
Vicky
Scotland

I came to the States for the first time a couple days after I turned 18. I wanted to visit my uncle who lived in Seattle and thought I might get a bit lucky so then I could get a job and live there. I arrived legally on a tourist visa and I applied for an asylum 3 months after that. I really hoped I could get through the process and at the end I would be granted a US citizenship. I had a working permit which I had to renew annually and I never missed paying taxes. I saved up some money and I took classes from a top music college in Boston, MA but I couldn't graduate due to my financial situation. FAFSA couldn't approve my application at that time so I needed to reach into my own pocket to pay my tuition. I worked at a local restaurant 60-70 hours a week and I started my music career in 2012. I was a part of a band based in Seattle that was quite popular at that time and we got to play for famous comedians, big casinos and many others. They paid me really well and the manager of the band is just a great model of how America should be like. He would let me play as much as the others do without any exceptions. I paid my taxes as a sub-contractor of the band and I didn't mind. I wanted thank America for giving me chances! I would also like to ask why you would kick me out when my asylum case had been denied. Now I'm living in Asia not knowing what else to do other that teaching ESL because I actually speak English. I hope to see you again soon, America. I really miss you and all my relatives that are still there. Someday we'll see each other again.
No name given
Indonesia

I have been apart from my wife and kids for 4 years now. I got a letter from NVC long time ago says that my visa was approved but they asked for someone to sponsor me. Sometime I ask myself is the US of America is still on planet earth. If I start walking it's not going to take all this time to see my wife and my son for the first time. Maybe it is because my name is Mohamed & I am Muslim. If that the problem I am ready to change my name & religion if that will help me to see my family. I always imagine that moment of us together and that moment of me seeing my son for the first time. I really feel powerless that I just can't do anything about this and I really hate myself about how powerless I am.
Mohamed
Kasserine, Tunisia-North Africa

I am 16 years old. My mother and I are both from Guatemala. My mother was forced to have sexual intercourse when she was 14. She got kicked out and struggled trying to find a place to sleep. My father heard about it and didn't care. His sister gave her a place to sleep but the problem was that the place was really little and filled with bugs. She had to sleep with those bugs everyday .She was 15 with a new born. My father at the time was having dreams about me. He wanted my mom and I to come to the United States .I don't know why he didn't go to a lawyer and try to work things out. He is a citizen, and yet he decided to bring us illegally. I was five years old at the time .I remember the day. My mother just told me to be quiet if I wanted to see my father. I remember holding my breath for some time waiting for the car to cross. It was the most sad and yet happy day of my life. I think my mom just wanted a better future for me. She wasn't making much and she knew my dad would help out. I don't really remember the day i saw my dad for the first time, but the years with him were amazing. Everything changed when he left back to Guatemala and wanted us to go back. My mom saw how I was doing in school and how we didn't suffer like we did back home. She didn't want to go back and she didn't. She later on went to Chicago. Her sister let her stay with her, and it was awful. My aunt was really selfish and mean. My mom didn't like that at all. We later on moved to California and she met a guy. It was the worst five years of my life. The guy didn't treat her the way my dad did. She was scared and worried for her life, and so was i. I don't want to go more into that. We recently moved out. I think now that she is on her own, she is working hard and being the best mom. After all this my main focus is just doing well in school and going to college. It is my main goal to finish college and look and my mom and thank her for staying and making my dreams come true of being someone in life.
anonymous
San Bernardino California

I came to this country in May, 2001 on H-1B visa and my family members (wife and my 2 daughters) joined me 2 months later. My elder daughter, was almost 10 years and 5 months old at the time of her arrival to USA. The labor Department approved my Application for Employment in 2005. I filed my papers for I140 in 2006, and the approval was given in 2008. I could not file for my Permanent Resident Status (I-485 form) as the priority date for India at that time was June 2001. Unfortunately, we received the letter on October 17th, 2015 regarding denial of the Green Card for my elder daughter because her age was over 21 years. Considering the above situation, the USCIS gives us no choice but to send my elder daughter back to India. She grew up in America and asking one daughter to be separated from her whole family just because she is older than 21 is disheartening. Our family has always believed in going by the law and have put all our efforts forward in the last 15 years to stay legal in this country. Currently, illegal immigrant children who were educated in America from a young age have rights to work and receive financial aid. Why is it that a family who has worked hard to stay legal and always follow the law is being punished for doing things the right way?
Divya
California

You know sometimes it can get hard not having papers. I was brought to the U.S. at the age 3 because my mom saw a better future for me there. We lived in my uncle's house with his family which are legal. My mom worked really hard for me to have everything I needed. However she fell in love with my step-dad and so we moved together as a family with his daughter and two sons. At first he treated me well but then became so fake to me. I thought that I would actually have someone to care for me and call him my dad. I'm 13 and this immigration stuff gets to me every day. I just want to go back home with my real family. (I'm an only child if you were wondering)
Guadalupe
Michigan

My father is 52 years old now. He entered The US at the age of 16 with a 3rd grade education. He has always been a hard worker and had been trying to obtain residency since I could remember. He was deported 4 years ago. My younger brothers were 2 and 16 at the time and I was 20. My brother got a job to help pay bills along with me and my older sister. My 2 year old brother is going to be 7 now and barely even knows who our dad is. I have helped raise him and took both of my brothers under my wing. I graduated from a technical college the year he was deported and now I am back in college and plan to obtain a degree in teaching. My father didn't raise criminals, he set examples of what hard work can accomplish. We never received government help and he always paid his taxes. So my question is why not look further into his history here rather than just assume anybody here "illegally," is in fact not worthy of living and thriving in this unjust but beautiful country.
Richard
Dallas, TX

I came in the US 1988 at 12 and now today at 37. I'm still dealing with being an immigrant after being married with 4 kids. I have had lawyers take my money and scam me over and over. My recent lawyer was indicted for scam. I lost my job 5 weeks ago because my lawyer was arrested and he kept all my documents to return to work. I have done all I can the legal way to obtain a green card but I feel like the system has failed me. I have lived in a prison for 25 years and I have committed no crime. My daughter will be 17 soon and when I started this journey I was pregnant with her.
Denise
No location given

I came here in 2009 by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. I don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did? He paid all of his taxes, did everything by the book. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model he raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, Texas

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

I was brought to the U.S illegally when I was 3 years of age. My father came to this country first before he brought my mother and I. My father and mother still continue to work hard every day to give me and my two younger brothers the absolute best. I thank my father every day for bringing us to this blessed and beautiful country and giving us a better quality of life. Throughout my life I never thought it would be such a big deal being illegal until I got to high school and staring applying for my licenses or college scholarships. Obviously I was denied for not having a social security number. Later on Mr. President Obama gave us an opportunity named deferred action and it has opened to many doors for me! I'm truly blessed. I was able to obtain my driver licenses and continue school. Honestly my life has completely changed.
Allison
North Carolina

I am from Somalia, endless battles forced me out of Somalia in March 11, 2011. I arrived Kenya and registered with the UNHCR as a refugee, many times i applied for a resettlement to a third country, due to the high number of Somali refugee the UNHCR was dealing with, i gave up and felt hopeless. One day in 2012 i applied for the diversity green card visa lottery, i was accepted, by 2014 i recieved my visa. I am now living and working in Portland, Maine. I am saving some money to go to college in the fall of this year, 2015.

Abdi
Portland, Maine

I was only a few months old when I was brought in the U.S with my mother my father and my big brother. I was born in Mexico DF on January 31. My mom thought it would be better to build a better life in the other side so we could have a better future. I am 20 years old now I've been waiting to get my papers for too long. I finished high school and got my diploma to be able to go to college. But I won't be able without my papers. Every day I cry because I can't help my mom with rent anymore. I don't work anymore. I want my mom to be proud of me but how can I if I'm not from here and they won't accept us. My mom was once deported when I was 10 years old. I found out the next day because she had not come home. I got a phone call from Mexico and she told me she wasn't going to come back until 3 to 4 month. Never in my entire life have I felt so mad, so mad because I was left without a mother for 3 month. After that I've been scared of cops because I don't remember anything from Mexico because I've been living in Houston for my entire life. I want to be able to enjoy my life and learn new stuff and travel, something I can't do.
Ivonne
Houston, TX

I met my husband a Mexican national in 2007 after having our daughter. We wanted to "fix" his status as he was illegal. He left the states in 2011 and was given a 10 year bar from reentering the US with no waiver. Living a nightmare of trying to keep our marriage together our kids happy and the inflow of money to the family. We will not be allowed to live "normal" until 2021. Immigration has robbed me of my children's daily growth and amazing first memories as I travel between Mexico and San Diego weekly. I simply want to see and hold my children daily and have the daily support of my amazing husband. Immigration is such a cold inhumane process... It's tearing families apart when it should be uniting them.
Stephanie
San Diego

My dad was deported when I was 16 years old. I know he is somewhere in the Dominican Republic, if he is still alive. I try not to think about it too much because there are so many questions and nobody to answer them. I'm now 22 years old and sometimes, I wonder where he is and what he is doing. I know that he would be proud of me getting my bachelor's degree and becoming a teacher and coach. Even though I don't have a good relationship with my mother and only lived with my father for a few years, I thank them wholeheartedly for their sacrifices. They had no idea where I would be at 22, but it was thanks to them that I was born and raised in a place with unlimited opportunities.
Emilia
Lawrence, MA

For as long as I can remember, I knew that my parents were undocumented. Growing up in New York City, so many of the people around me were undocumented I didn't really know what it meant. But, as I got older, I started to figure it out. My parents would tell my siblings that we wouldn't be able to fly to see our cousins in Florida or even take a bus to another state because they didn't have a state-issued ID. I have always feared my parents getting stopped by the authorities and then getting deported. When I left for Scripps College in August all the way in California (I was born and raised in NYC), my parents couldn't even accompany me into the airport. My mom was terrified of going into the terminal for fear that someone would ask her for documentation. I went alone. In November, when I heard President Obama issue an executive order that would help about 5 million undocumented people living in the United States come out of the shadows, I felt elated.
Henna
California

I came into this Country when I was 2 years of age, I am now 19 about to turn 20. Like everybody, my parents came into this country to seek for a better life and to provide me with a better quality of education and to make sure I had everything I could possibly need. The three of us came into this country illegally, they came here without knowing anybody or without speaking or understanding the English language. Since day one they've worked very hard every day to build our empire that we have now. I'm beyond blessed and grateful because every day we are living the American dream. All through out these years it has definitely not been easy but definitely worth it. I now have my SS thanks to DACA but I'm still hoping to have the opportunity to go back to my homeland and have the blessing to see my grandparents at least one more time. Even though I will never get 15-16 years back I pray every day to god to give me the chance to be able to see them someday because even though I have everything now I have an empty place in my heart of not being able to hug them or telling them how much they mean to me.
Allison
California
Like many others I came to the U.S at a young age, 6. My parents took me and my two sisters 9 and 1 at the time from Brazil. 15 years later we all got our green cards. In 2014, I was 22 years of age and met a beautiful girl. She was also an immigrant from Brazil. She and her family were here on a tourist visa and switched to the application of a religious visa. Her dad is a pastor. During the 8 months we dated, things were moving great until they were denied the religious visa and had to go back to Brazil. I proposed to her the day before she left in belief, I with a green card can legalize her. We were going to get married in 2016, but in March 2015 our lives changed. She still had a valid tourist visa, she was coming to celebrate our 1 year anniversary of the day we started dating. Coming from Brazil to the U.S. she was stopped at the airport for questioning. The officers asked her about her stay in the U.S, she admitted to having worked in the U.S. for a couple of months on a part-time job. She did not have employment authorization to have gotten the job. She was sent back that day to Brazil. I didn't get to see her and remember that as one of the worst days of my life. Now she can't visit me as her visa is cancelled. I went and got married July 2015. With the stain on her name, we were advised to wait for my citizenship before trying to legalize her. It will take 2 years for me to be eligible to be a citizen. I hope they will forgive her and let her live with me. I will continue to work and visit her periodically during these two years to build a future for us here in the U.S. It won't be easy but we are faithful things will work out and we can be together in the U.S. again.
Doug
Florida

My parents came here from Europe when I was just 3 years old. They haven't been back since and haven't seen their families in almost 20 years. It's been a very tough life for them and I almost wish they never came here. They have jobs they hate, no social life, and I have watched them grow to hate each other because of all these factors. I wish desperately there was some way to get them back home and to make them happy but there's not much I can do. Their mental energy is almost completely gone. I love them to death but can't handle seeing them so sad.
Ella
Colorado

I'm 22 years old and currently study Electrical Engineering. I was 8 years old when my parents decided to go to the Unites States. We lived there for almost ten years. Which means I lived my entire childhood there. Now we're living in Chile. I really feel like I don't belong here. It has been really depressing for me and my family. I have two younger brothers who were born in the US. I didn't get the chance to get my citizenship but I really miss the US and am struggling to leran Spanish and missing the life i had in New York. All my friends are over there and I feel more American than Chilean and hope one day I can go back to where I think I belong.
Bastian
Valparais, Chile

I am an American by heart, soul and hard work. I love my country but they apparently do not love. I moved to the US in 1984 with my girlfriend at that time. She had a GREEN CARD and was legal. I was a Canadian citizen. We married in the US and she started to work. In those times, I could work illegally easily until we had arranged for my legal status. My wife came home one day and said that she had my SSN that she had been working on for some time. I had no idea how the process worked (sticking my head in the ground a little of course) and utilized that SSN for the next 24 years while I worked, built a company, employed people, did year of volunteer work, paid all of my personal and corporate taxes fully (which for many years where substantial as I made a very good living). As a test to the reality of the SSN, I received 2 NASD licenses which required finger prints, FBI back ground, etc. to make sure I am who I say I am. I had no illegal activities and had renewed my driver's license a number of times without a problem. I was even audited twice. Then, when getting divorced I find out that it is NOT a good number. The person that really does have that SSN is alive and will receive the very handsome benefit of the taxes that I paid all those years. Now Canada, the country I was born in, says I do not have a very long history of work and very little contribution to my CPP so I will receive almost nothing in retirement. Having spent all my funds in my earlier years on my nieces and nephews to get them through school and university, I am up the creek without a paddle.
Warren
Canada

Both my parents came to the U.S illegally. After working in the U.S for over 20 years and paying taxes (even though they can never benefit from social security) they still cannot catch a break. My parents grew up poor in Mexico and both had to drop out of school to work to support their families. So before you judge, know that in Mexico it is a vicious cycle of not having an education because you don't have money and not having money because you don't have an education.
Israel
Portland, Oregon

My name is Vanessa and am an American citizen. I have a twin Samantha and we both are 16 years old and living with our grandparents. My mom and my other 2 sisters (also American citizens) live in Mexico with my Dad because he is deported and cannot come back. In 2005 they deported him and punished him for 10 years. On July 2015 he went to the Juarez Consulate and they denied his case. Since I was 6 years old I have been going to Mexico and coming to the US. I am a junior at Avenal High School. I get straight A's at school and life is hard without my family. My only dream since I was 6 is to have my Daddy here with me. Is it really much to ask for?
Vanessa
Avenal, CA

I immigrated to the Bronx, NY, in December 1984 when I was only fourteen years old after waiting 11 long years for my father to send for us. The wait was long but it was worth it. I come from a family of five children, I'm #4. I could not imagine life anywhere else. My home country (Dominican Republic) although beautiful, is corrupt and lacks education and job opportunities. I can honestly say that I have lived the American Drea. I took every opportunity available to me and have been able to experience a great education, have lived well and have benefited from all the work of all of those who came before me, including my father with his 2nd grade education, a hard worker who taught me the values of hard work and education. I am proud to be an American and to enjoy the freedom and wealth this country has to offer. God bless America.
Martha D.
West Palm Beach, FL

My mom brought me here along with my older sister. My mom was raped and forced to be with the guy that raped her. She did not get any counseling, left for the U.S and brought that same mindset. I have more siblings now. My oldest sister suffered from my mom's mindset of being abused. Our step dad forced himself on her. He left with three daughters and a son that were his. My mom has brought home a new dad. I think she doesn't realize how much it affects us.
Karen
Georgia

My father arrived illegally in New York about 18 years ago with his younger brother. My father worked hard upon arrival. He took jobs in New Jersey and New York City delivering packages. He then met my mother-disabled and born with only one arm-and fell in love. They had me and my sister only a year apart and started a family. Deportation was feared among my parents especially after so many tries with countless lawyers. How could my father leave his wife with one arm and two underage daughters alone?
Bianca
New York

I was born in Guadalajara Mexico. My parents came to the USA when I was 8 years old. I'm now 36 years old and unemployed. Being undocumented has made life so difficult. I became pregnant with twins at age 16 my kids are now 19 and my youngest 13. I have been living in constant fear of deportation and not been able to obtain stability and provide for my younger daughter. I feel like everyone around me is moving up in life and I'm stuck. I literally cry every day because of my immigration status, all my family is here legally except me. I want to do so much with my life but it seems impossible. I stay optimistic but it doesn't change the fact that I'm undocumented. Life is just so unfair.
Jessica
San Diego CA

I'm about to be 16. My dad has been trying to get his papers since I was born. They've gone to lawyers in New Orleans but all they do is say wait and to pay money when they don't do anything for us. At one point my dad was able to get his license but they never let him renew it. He's been working hard since I was born. We have a new house that we built. We can't buy a four wheeler or a truck since he doesn't have a license. He has DUI's from like 02-03 and that's it. I just want to get his papers for him so that I don't lose him. He deserves his papers being a hard worker and has done nothing wrong in his life.
Brian
Louisiana

South Koreans call United States Mee-Gook, which means "beautiful nation". America, the beautiful land of opportunity, is how I always envisioned my journey. I applied for jobs thinking I have 12 months to find a sponsorship. After several interviews, I realized that getting a job with H-1B sponsorship looming over my head is extremely difficult. Here is why: I'm a recent graduate from undergraduate with math degree, this severely limits my job options because USCIS determines what jobs math majors are allowed to work for H-1B visa through an occupational outlook handbook.
Charlie
Richmond, Virginia

My parents had left me at the age of 2 back in Mexico with my grandparents while they came to the U.S. They sent for me at the age of 4 and that is when I crossed the border with my aunt. It was hard at first but I got used to being here. I am now 18 years old and thankful that I was able to qualify for the DACA. With DACA I have been able to do so much. Thankfully I now have 2 jobs and I am in school. Although I am undocumented, I do not give up my hopes and dreams of a better life for my family. Although, it is difficult I was able to enroll into college and I am about to be done with my first semester. Hopefully I can continue my studies later on. As much as I would like to go visit my family in Mexico, I can't. That upsets me every day but I keep going strong for them. This isn't a sad story, this is just to let everyone know there is hope and to fight for what they want! Being undocumented shouldn't stop us, WE CAN DO IT! We just have to believe.
Wendy
New York

I am 19 years old and lived in the USA for 10 years of my life. I was deported alongside my mother and sister 5 years ago. My life has never been the same. When you realize how much your life is going to change in such a short period of time, you can only miss and mourn about the past, because that's what it is and will be. The past. There's not a day in my life, even though I don't necessarily want to, that I don't say to myself "what if I was still there...". Depression, came to me at a young age. Nostalgia was more than just a word at the age of 13. It is hard coping with a loss of what could've been a lifetime. I am doing my best to overcome reality and move along but all I seem to want is an opportunity to go back. I have no idea how or even if I can but it's a dream I wish came true soon enough.
Juan David
North Bergen, New Jersey

I was deported after being legally in the USA for over fifty years and receiving social security. They took my S.S. away. I am 69 years old and had not visited my country in all that time. My sons are all U.S. Citizens and my mother too. I do not know anyone in my country. It's been a nightmare. I sas hoping the plane would crash. That's how depressed I felt. I think it was an injustice to take my only source of income. I thought this was a just country.
Luis Eugenio
Dominican Republic

I came to the US on the Iraqi Young Leaders Exchange Program. I have been here since July, 23, 2014 and my visa was for 1 month. Right in the middle of the fun I was having around the US with 35 Iraqi students and 10 Americans, my family called me and told me that they have left home and they are refugees. Now my village was taken over by ISIS and they are killing people for their religious beliefs and thousands of the young girls are now taken as sex slaves. So I applied for asylum in US before my visa expired and I did my interview 2 months ago. Now I'm just waiting for the letter to come and if they say yes then I'm safe here. If not then I might have to go back and I could be killed there.
Azswan
Portland, OR

I came to United States at the age of 14 from Uzbekistan. The decision was my mother's; she felt like we needed a better life after my father died from lymphatic cancer. It was tough at first, but all I cared about is that I'm here now. I knew I had no future in Uzbekistan due to extreme corruption and broken education for which you can pay through. I am 17 now, on my way to college. Although current circumstances aren't as I'd want them to be, I will change that. After all, this is the land of opportunities.
Umar
Los Angeles

I was brought here when I was 2 years old. My dad came to New York a few years before but left my mom pregnant. Sadly, he couldn't see me when I was a baby due to him being illegal. He sent for us when I was 2 1/2 years old. I crossed the border with my mom and granddad and my aunt. Back then it was easier than it is now. My mom told me she was lucky that I was a quiet baby so we had no trouble. When we came to new York I lived in my uncle's house (who is a citizen) and I moved to new jersey 3 months later. I'm 15 now and I still get really upset because I want to be legal here. I want to help my parents out and get a good job and buy them their own house, but sadly I can't. I want to study cosmetology or psychology but me being illegal I can't.
Maria
New York

I went school in Canada and moved to Texas in 2010. At that time I was thinking it will be hard to settle in because of my race. However this was not the case. Within 3 months I got my first job and from there on I am just progressing. My family moved here in 2012. I would just like to thank the US for giving me an opportunity to pursue my dreams. Of course all countries have pros and cons but I still believe US is the land of opportunities. It has all the tools and resources you need to succeed. You don't need to be rich to enjoy all the privileges this country has to offer. You can still live a beautiful life. People are so helpful here. You get the respect you deserve. I was not born here but I wish I did.
Thank you US for everything.
Texas

My father was heading to work when the immigration was waiting for him. They had a warrant for him. They took him even though he has been living here for 40+ years. Now he can't see his newborn grandson, nor me or my brother including my little sister. My parents are divorced and who is she supposed to give her advice, give her that comfort that my father did. He paid all of his taxes and did everything by the books. I just can't believe this is what we call justice in America. This isn't the land of the free anymore. My father is my role model. He raised me and my older brother by himself. I just can't believe how they can do this to an innocent man. He's been in the immigration holding facilities for a year now!
Alejandro
Pasadena, TX

I came here in 2009 and immigrated by myself from Iraq. I was 20 years old then. Now I'm 25 years old and pretty soon will become a citizen. Don't have family support or any kind of support. It was tough at times but quiet seas don't make good sailors. Life is going pretty well. I have a lot of experience in sales and customer service. I can work in any field I wish for. I'm working full time and going to school part time. I made a really good plan for my future. I believe that my future is set.
Bashar
No location given

I came to the United States when I was only 4 years old. I have 3 siblings, 2 of them are apart of the dream act , they have their ss and worker permit for a limited time. My parents are illegal immigrants, but my father has his drivers license which expires 2017 and we don't know what is gonna happen after that. It was a miracle how he got his license back in 2007. My parents work as janitors because they can't get better jobs because of their status. I'm 18 years old, I recently just graduated high school. I'm very depressed because I see kids going to school, getting jobs, cars etc and I am stuck in my life. I can't work, I can't do a thing without being afraid of being deported. I feel very low. It saddens me everyday I sit at home wishing my life was better.
Anonymous

At the age of three, my mom left me and my twin brother in the care of my grandmother to find a better life. She worked day and night to have us back. Six months later my lovely, hardworking mother sent for us. Our trip to America wasn't nearly as hard as hers though. She had to walk the deadly trail, hoping she could make it is so she can see us again. Once we were all together life got better for a short time. Some years after my mother lost her job because of an on the job accident. My mother was fired and felt lost. Our life is now better, but all I want is to be able to keep my education going and to give back all I was given. It's a dream that may never come true, but my hope is there. May God help me and bless all of you.
Diana
No location given

I was born here in USA Northridge, CA in 1980 by immigrant parents. My mother came to the USA at the age of 15 and my father at the age of 16. Both of them should of been in high school but got here and started working. We never received any type of government help. We had to work very hard to survive and pay our rent until now. I heard on the news about what is going on at the border and didn't really care until I heard my cousin and her two young children were held. She and her husband and children are here because their lands were taken away and some bad people are trying to steal the rest of their lands. My cousin was able to get help but told me some really horrible stories about how they are being held in one small room and they are all crowded with moms and babies not being able to sleep and eat only once a day. I had no idea this was happening until today when she and her 2 children were released. The youngest of her children is a 1 1/2 yr old girl. They are here now but she was left with a real bad trauma. She wakes up crying asking for food, something that she never did until this happed. I really feel sad to know that people are not being treated right but worse than animals! We are children of God. What happened to one nation under God?
Yesenia
Northridge, CA

I'm 42 and live in Morocco with my deported husband. His visa had expired and he overstayed. He saved my life as I was divorcing an abusive husband of 20 years. I relocated and we married. He was taking care of me and my son. I was back in college. Until the day they found him. They deported him and left me homeless. I only had enough money to buy a ticket to his country as nobody would help me. We are now stuck here and making it but struggling. I say why would my country deport someone who was working and helped me a citizen make my life better. We are out of ways for me to come home and nobody to help us.
Julie
Morocco

I am a U.S. and Canadian citizen and have lived here in the U.S. for over 9 years now. My boyfriend was brought to the U.S. (without papers) when he was 17. He came with his dad, leaving his mom and siblings behind in Mexico. He has never been back and has now lived in the U.S. for over 14 years. When they arrived at the border town in Mexico, they were kidnapped for ransom. Their kidnappers started to take them out to the desert (which many times means death.) Thankfully, however, he and his dad managed to escape and continue their journey. Despite having had that harrowing experience, my boyfriend explained that he and his dad had a rather easy crossing, not suffering nearly as much as many do. Anyway, we plan to get married soon, but our future is uncertain. In the beginning of this year, he got pulled over for driving with a suspended license. Instead of just being given the standard fine, he was also given a court date. Before I met him, I had a very different perspective over illegal immigration. I was very "by the books" and not very understanding of what immigrants go through. But now I have a lot of respect for all immigrants; they are so determined and work so hard and are willing to suffer everything in order to provide a better life for their families. His story and his perspective have helped me broaden my perspective and have a greater compassion for others.
Katie
No city given

My parents and I arrived to the U.S with a visitor's visa. My grandfather was facing some serious times and my mother was 19 years old and not seeing her dad for 18 years decided to visit him. My dad was 22 and I was 1 year old! My mother tells me their intention was never to stay, but they did. It has been 19 years and I was excited when they passed the act where students could get a legal temporary stay ,DACA (deferred action for children arrivals). After all this time of feeling in the shadows and not really living "free" I went to see lawyers who could help me apply, but I couldn't because I visited my grandmother in Mexico for 7 months. Since I couldn't apply for the DACA my parents got me into an arranged marriage. At first i agreed but once I thought about it I changed my mind but it didn't matter. They took me into the office and I got married. I was manipulated in several was into doing so. What hurts the most is that not even seeing me crying did they not go through with it. But I didn't apply for my papers through my husband. I got the courage to stand my ground and not care about the consequences and even though people tell me " you're already married just do it" I say no. It is not right! I'm filling for divorce! And if there is no solution to my situation. I'm going back to Mexico. Starting fresh and trusting god! I'm 20 years old now, I'm waiting until my 26 birthday to make my final choice. Some people forget that the constitution of the United States starts with "We the people ..." not "We the American Citizens"
Liz
California

I came here when I was 3 years old. I'm currently 16. Everyone else in my family that is here with me is legal. Everyone but me. I'm close to finishing high school... too close. I love America, this is my home, but this is no way to live. I didn't choose to be here, they did... and now I'll have to deal with the consequences.I just want to go to college, study medicine and save lives. Is that too much to ask for? I just want to belong here, I want to be an American citizen.
Lost Dreamer
Somewhere within America

I came to America from United Kingdom London in 2005 for a holiday. I was 18 years old at the time I got a 3 months visa waiver, I had no plans staying over my visa but faith had its own plans. I meet guy and we married in 2007. We continued living together till we went to a lawyer and advised me to go back to England as that's the only way for my hubby to apply a petition for me. Meanwhile we took his advice I came back to UK so when he tried to process for me the petition we found out that I have ban for 10 years as I overstayed my visa more than 1 year.
Londoner
Oregon

My story starts in Haiti 1978. My mom was only 15 and pregnant. My dad 22. My dad left me and my mom and came to America for a better life. When I was about 7months old my mom decided to let my aunt take me to America under a different name. When I came to America I was passed around with no status or papers. My father later became a U.S. Citizen and never applied for me. I am now 35yrs old and I don't know any other country but here! And I don't have enough money to fix my situation either I feel lost.
Chenille
Boston

I was brought here when I was 10 years old. I am now 28yrs old. I went to elementary, middle and high school. I have three daughters with my fiance. He is a U.S citizen born in California. He wants to apply for my residency here, but we are scared that because I was brought here illegally they could send me back to El Salvador. I have been working as a Medical Assistant for 8 yrs and started taking courses at a local college to get my nursing degree. We want to get marry but we don't know if USCIS will sent me back.
Carolina
Wheaton, MD

I came to the U.S. when I was 7 years old. My stepfather was an american soldier who married my German mother in Germany and also adopted me before we entered the U.S. My mother passed away in 1968 and told me I was a citizen. Being a young girl and not knowing what credentials that were needed to get government benefits for Medicare and monthly Social Security payouts for later after all my husband and I have paid into the system since age 16. We have been married for 48 years. My husband is an American citizen, born in Tx.
Presently Homeland is supposed to look up my history in the U.S and finding info on permanent resident and citizenship through my mother. I was 18 when she received her citizenship. It has been 2 years that Homeland has had my info filled out by Catholic family services. I also applied for my permanent resident card. I really don't care at this point which one they send but it has been one year for the green card and everything is at a standstill for both applications. What does a person do with this Obama care? I am over 65 and cannot get Medicare through Obama and private insurance is very expensive!
Marianne White
Amarillo Tx

I'm married a wonderful citizen American for 8 years, live together for 10 years, but we are living out of states since 2004 due to visa denied. The reason is " sham divorce for immigration" from consulate officer...for 10 years my husband never go back to USA and I'm so scared to go to US consulate to interview for visa (for any kind of visa). I just feel so sorry for my husband. He could not see his parents for longtime... because we love each other so much no matter what we stay...but still...feel so sad and don't know what to do next.
Mai
Ho Chi Minh City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statistics do not tell the story of immigration. People do. Since its inception, this nation has been continually infused with the energy of newcomers. Yet their assimilation has seldom been smooth. The challenges we face today are not new. Only the stories are. SHARE YOUR STORY IMPORTANT NOTICE If you need legal advice on immigration...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nation’s highest court has had plenty to say about everything from free speech at school to teenagers’ rights in the legal system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | "Girls Take Flight" drone program sends girls flying with new skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High school girls soar in the "Girls Take Flight" drone piloting program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lawmakers in two states that represent the high and low of measles vaccination rates are considering bills to allow greater choice in getting children immunized.

In Mississippi, more than 99.7% of kindergarteners received two doses of vaccine against measles, mumps and German measles in the 2013-14 school year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Colorado, the rate was 81.7%; nationwide the average is 94.7%.

In both states, some parents - groups called Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights and the Colorado Coalition for Vaccine Choice - have been active in their support of the bills. Federal health officials say unvaccinated children have been at the root of a recent outbreak of measles in 14 states, including Colorado.

"We got the Health Department out of the way, so they can't block medical exemptions like they did in the past," said parent Amy Martin of Jackson, Miss. She supports Mississippi House Bill 130 that would put into law the state's existing practice of granting medical waivers to children whose doctors request them and prevent the Mississippi Department of Health from denying such requests, which happened in some instances before 2007.

The Mississippi bill passed the House Education Committee on Tuesday, saving it from extinction before a crucial deadline, but it still must pass the full state House and Senate before reaching the governor's desk.

Colorado's Senate Bill 15-077 would codify parents' rights to make all medical, mental-health care and education decisions for their children younger than 18 - including whether to have them immunized. The state Senate's Education Committee is scheduled to have a hearing on the bill Thursday.

Colorado already is one of 20 states that allow a personal-belief exemption for parents who want to opt out of vaccinating their children and one of 48 that allow religious exemptions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Mississippi allows neither exemption, but the original version of its HB 130 would have allowed exemptions for "conscientious beliefs," language that was removed from the version passed Tuesday.

Some Mississippi legislators said they have personally intervened on families' behalf to get the state health department to approve requests from physicians.

"Now if a pediatrician decides it's best not to vaccinate or that it's best to spread out vaccinations, that decision will be honored," said Tracey Liles of Grenada, Miss., an HB 130 supporter.

Liles and Martin, like most HB 130 supporters in Mississippi, said they believe in fully vaccinating youngsters but want more flexibility in the schedule without having to keep their children out of schools or day-care centers.

To enter kindergarten in Mississippi, children need five vaccines in a series of 16 shots, according to the state epidemiologist.

Colorado has the same requirements, according to a comparison of each state's websites.

About half of Colorado's U.S. House delegation doesn't think immunization against childhood diseases such as measles, polio, whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox should be mandatory.

"Vaccination decisions are very personal and in almost every case should be made by parents consulting with their physician," said Greg Brophy, chief of staff to Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo. "We'll leave the legal question to local authorities, school boards. And day-care centers can set their own standards."
Contributing: Brandon Rittiman, KUSA-TV, Denver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At least 2 states look at broadening vaccine exemptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mississippi, Colorado legislatures both have bills in play.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note (11/27/2017): This post was updated with new statistics on plastic waste generation and recycling, as well as new information on methods of reuse.
What would modern life be like without plastic? According to The World Economic Forum, plastic production has exploded over the last half-century, growing from 16.5 million tons in 1964 to 343 million tons in 2014; it is projected to double by 2036. Where does all of it go when we're done with it?

In 2014, Americans discarded about 33.6 million tons of plastic, but only 9.5 percent of it was recycled and 15 percent was combusted to create electricity or heat.

Most of the rest ends up in landfills where it may take up to 500 years to decompose, and potentially leak pollutants into the soil and water. It's estimated that there are already 165 million tons of plastic debris floating around in the oceans threatening the health and safety of marine life. And an average of 8.8 million more tons enter the oceans each year, including microplastics, tiny particles less than five millimeters long from cosmetics, fabrics or the breakdown of larger pieces, which may be ingested by marine wildlife.

Relatively little of our plastic waste is recycled because there are various types of plastic with different chemical compositions, and recycled plastics can be contaminated by the mixing of types. Plastic waste is also contaminated by materials such as paper and ink. Separating plastics from other recyclables, and different types of plastic from each other, is labor-intensive and so far there has been no easy solution.

Although the Society of Plastic Industries developed seven codes to distinguish types of plastic for recycling, in reality, only two-polyethylene terephthalate (PET, used for synthetic fibers and water bottles) and high density polyethylene (HDPE, used for jugs, bottle caps, water pipes)-are routinely recycled. But in more and more cities like New York and Chicago, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic bags are now being recycled too. And increasingly, the recycling industry's use of near‐infrared spectroscopy, which can identify the chemical composition of plastics, is improving the efficiency and speed of recycling.

Plastics that can be recycled are first sorted, shredded and rid of impurities like paper. The shreds are then melted and formed into pellets, which can be made into other products.

MoistureShield in Arkansas, and Virginia-based Trex recycle polyethylene into outdoor decking material, fencing, and doors and windows. Coca Cola is increasing the amount of recycled plastic in its bottles to 50 percent.

Plastic is made from petroleum or natural gas in a chemical process that combines smaller molecules into a large chainlike molecule, often with other substances added to give it particular qualities. (Some, like phthalates and bisphenol A, can have harmful health effects.) Plastic production is estimated to use four percent of global oil production-both as the raw material and for energy in the manufacturing process. Because these polymers embody energy from fossil fuels (and actually have a higher energy value than coal and wood), leaving so much of it in landfills is not only an environmental hazard, it is a huge waste of a valuable resource that could be used to produce electricity, heat, or fuel.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemical Council asked the Earth Institute's Earth Engineering Center to explore ways of recovering the energy inherent in non-recycled plastics. The 2011 report, which was updated in 2014, determined that the amount of energy contained in the millions of tons of plastic in U.S. landfills is equivalent to 48 million tons of coal, 180 million barrels of oil, or one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If all this plastic were converted into liquid fuel, it could produce 5.7 billion gallons of gasoline, enough to power 8.9 million cars per year. And the fact is, there are now technologies that can put all this waste to good use.

The report examined three ways of utilizing non-recycled plastic for energy production: converting it directly into liquid fuel, using separated plastics as fuel in special types of power plants, and increasing the amount of garbage burned in waste-to-energy facilities.

Plastics can be converted into crude oil or other types of products through pyrolysis, a high heat process that does not use oxygen. Agilyx, an Oregon-based company, has developed a system that heats polystyrene from foam cups, packaging materials, and Styrofoam to create a styrene monomer, a building block of the plastic industry. The final liquid product can be sold to other refiners to produce oil or to make more polystyrene.

Plastic2Oil in Niagara Falls, NY, uses unwashed, unsorted waste plastic to produce ultra-low sulfur fuels that do not require further refining. The company maintains that its process is "highly green, clean and scalable."

A number of other companies in the U.S., Africa, Asia and Europe are investing in technology that produces liquid fuel from plastic wastes.

According to the updated Earth Engineering Center report, power plants specially designed to use non-recycled plastics as fuel could theoretically produce 61.9 million MWh of electricity, enough to power 5.7 million homes.

Burning more garbage inwaste-to-energy facilities would recover the energy inherent in plastics and reduce greenhouse gas emissions since landfills emit methane (a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide) as garbage decomposes. Unlike incinerators of the past, modern waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity and heat in boilers designed for complete combustion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said they produce electricity "with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."

If the amount of garbage sitting in U.S. landfills in 2011 was burned in waste-to-energy facilities, it could theoretically yield enough electricity to power 13.8 million households and reduce coal use by 100 million tons a year. In 2015, 71 waste-to-energy facilities and four other power plants in the United States burned 29 million tons of garbage, generating nearly 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.

A 2009 United Nations Environmental Programme report on converting plastic waste into a resource described the production of gaseous fuels, using high heat to decompose plastic waste, and solid fuel derived from a mixture of waste plastic, paper, and wood. The materials are first shredded, sorted then made into pellets. A number of companies in Japan are producing both solid and gaseous fuels. The Showa Denko company, headquartered in Tokyo, uses heat gasification to recycle plastic waste into ammonia, used to manufacture many products, and CO2 for carbonization.

Liter of Light, a grassroots movement with partnerships around the world, has found another way to recycle plastic bottles. It helps energy-poor communities convert discarded soda bottles into solar bottle bulbs to illuminate homes and streets. The organization has installed over 350,000 bottle lights in more than 15 countries.

The best solutions for our plastic problem are still to reduce our use of them, and to reuse and recycle whenever possible. More policies that ban plastic bag use, require bottle deposits and expand recycling would help. But millions of tons of plastic waste still sit in landfills around the country; technologies that are able to tap this waste as a resource can offer multiple benefits, helping to clean up the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, decrease our use of non-renewable virgin resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and generate energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans discard about 33.6 million tons of plastic each year, but only 9.5 percent of it is recycled and 15 percent is combusted in waste-to-energy facilities. What happens to the rest of it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hate Speech There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've all heard of it, but what is climate change and what is it doing to our planet?

So, what is climate change?

Climate change (or global warming), is the process of our planet heating up.

Scientists estimate that since the Industrial Revolution, human activity has caused the Earth to warm by approximately 1°C. While that might not sound like much, it means big things for people and wildlife around the globe.

Unfortunately, rising temperatures don't just mean that we'll get nicer weather - if only! The changing climate will actually make our weather more extreme and unpredictable.

As temperatures rise, some areas will get wetter and lots of animals (and humans!) could find they're not able to adapt to their changing climate.

Check out our magazine!
National Geographic Kids is an exciting monthly read for planet-passionate boys and girls, aged 6-13! Packed full of fun features, jaw-dropping facts and awe-inspiring photos - it'll keep you entertained for hours! Find our magazine in all good newsagents, or become a subscriber and have it delivered to your door! Ask your parents to check out the 'Subscribe' tab on our website!
(AD)

What causes climate change?

1. Burning fossil fuels

Over the past 150 years, industrialised countries have been burning large amounts of fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The gases released into the atmosphere during this process act like an invisible 'blanket', trapping heat from the sun and warming the Earth. This is known as the " Greenhouse Effect ".

2. Farming

Believe it or not, cows' eating habits contribute towards climate change. Just like us, when cows eat, methane - a type of greenhouse gas - builds up in their digestive system and is released in the form of... a burp! This might sound funny, but when you imagine that there are almost 1.5 billion cows releasing all that gas into the atmosphere, it sure adds up!

3. Deforestation

Forests absorb huge amounts of carbon dioxide - another greenhouse gas - from the air, and release oxygen back into it. The Amazon rainforest is so large and efficient at doing this that it acts like our planet's air conditioner - limiting climate change. Sadly, many rainforests are being cut down to make wood, palm oil and to clear the way for farmland, roads, oil mines, and dams.

How will climate change affect the planet?

The Earth has had many tropical climates and ice ages over the billions of years that it's been in existence, so why is now so different? Well, this is because for the last 150 years human activity has meant we're releasing a huge amount of harmful gases into the Earth's atmosphere, and records show that the global temperatures are rising more rapidly since this time.

A warmer climate could affect our planet in a number of ways:
- Shrinking sea ice
How will climate change affect wildlife?

Climate change is already affecting wildlife all over the world, but certain species are suffering more than others. Polar animals - whose icy natural habitat is melting in the warmer temperatures - are particularly at risk. In fact, experts believe that the Arctic sea ice is melting at a shocking rate - 9% per decade! Polar bears need sea ice to be able to hunt, raise their young and as places to rest after long periods of swimming. Certain seal species, like ringed seals make caves in the snow and ice to raise their pups, feed and mate.

It's not just polar animals who are in trouble. Apes like orangutans, which live in the rainforests of Indonesia, are under threat as their habitat is cut down, and more droughts cause more bushfires.

Sea turtles rely on nesting beaches to lay their eggs, many of which are threatened by rising sea levels. Did you know that the temperature of nests determines whether the eggs are male or female? Unfortunately, with temperatures on the rise, this could mean that many more females are born than males, threatening future turtle populations.

How will people be affected by climate change?

Climate change won't just affect animals, it's already having an impact on people, too. Most affected are some of the people who grow the food we eat every day. Farming communities, especially in developing countries, are facing higher temperatures, increased rain, floods and droughts.

We Brits love a good cuppa, (around 165 million cups of the stuff every day!), but we probably take for granted just how much work goes into growing our tea. Environmental conditions can affect the flavour and quality plus it needs a very specific rainfall to grow. In Kenya, climate change is making rainfall patterns less and less predictable. Often there will be droughts followed by huge amounts rain, which makes it very difficult to grow tea.

Farmers might then resort to using cheap chemicals to improve their crop to earn more money, even when long-term use of these chemicals can destroy their soil.

How are people coping with climate change?

Buying Fairtrade products can help make sure a farmer is paid a fair wage. This means they can cover their costs, earn enough money to have a decent standard of living, and invest in their farms to keep their crop healthy, without needing to resort to cheap methods of farming which can further damage the environment.

This support also helps farmers to replace eucalyptus trees - which take up a lot of water - with indigenous trees that are better for the farmers' soil. They can learn to make fuel-efficient stoves which will not only make them a little extra money, but also reduce the carbon footprint of the community - cool!

How can I help prevent climate change?

Small changes in your own home can make a difference, too. Try switching to energy-saving lightbulbs, walking instead of using the car, turning off electrical items when you're not using them, recycling and reducing your food waste.

All these little things can make a difference. You can check out more eco-friendly ideas, in our kids' guide to saving the planet! Plus, check out our cool article about Greta Thunberg, too, to discover how young people are making their voices heard.

You can download information about Fairtrade and climate change for your school, here! www.fairtrade.org.uk/schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is climate change: facts for kids | National Geographic Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've all heard of it, but what is climate change and what is it doing to our planet? Climate change (or global warming), is the process of our planet heating up. Scientists estimate that since the Industrial Revolution, human activity has caused the Earth to warm by approximately 1°C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ... another drone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drone use has increased dramatically over the last two years, despite federal regulations that all but ban them. Reports of drones flying within striking distance of aircraft are especially troubling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Health officials blame rise in measles cases on anti-vaccine conspiracies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
False information spread about vaccines by conspiracy theorists has led to a measles outbreak.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society.

Canada aims to ban single-use plastics by 2021

June 10, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday that in addition to banning single-use plastics, his government would take other, unspecified steps to reduce plastic pollution.

Trudeau did not specify the products to be banned, but said likely candidates include plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks "where supported by scientific evidence and warranted."

"You've all heard the stories and seen the photos," he said. "To be honest, as a dad it is tough trying to explain this to my kids. How do you explain dead whales washing up on beaches across the world, their stomachs jam packed with plastic bags?

"How do I tell them that against all odds, you will find plastic at the very deepest point in the Pacific Ocean?"

Canada, which has 151,019 miles of coastline-the world's longest-and a quarter of the world's fresh water, joins a growing list of nations taking steps to reduce the use of disposable plastics. More than 60 nations have taken steps to reduce single-use plastics by imposing bans or taxes, according to a United Nations report published last year. In March the European Union's parliament voted to ban the top 10 single-use plastic items found on European beaches by 2021. The EU measure also calls for 90 percent of plastic bottles to be recycled by 2025. Member states must work out the details of bans before the 2021 deadline.

India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, who was overwhelmingly reelected last month to a second five-year term, declared in 2018 that India would eliminate all single-use plastic by 2022, an ambitious plan for the world's second most populated country.

Trudeau made his announcement at the Gault Nature Reserve outside Montreal. He noted that Canada recycles less than 10 percent of its disposable plastics, and is on track to throw away $11 billion worth of disposable plastic by 2030 unless things change.

He said the federal government will work with provinces and territories to introduce standards and targets for plastics manufacturers and retailers so they become more responsible for their plastic waste. Trudeau said he also supports efforts by Canada's minister of environment to create a nationwide strategy for zero plastic waste.

"This will be a big step but we know we can do this for 2021," Trudeau said.

Peru restricts single-use plastic

Visitors will no longer be allowed to carry in single-use plastics into Peru's 76 natural and cultural protected areas, from Machu Picchu to Manu to Huascarán, or national museums. This ban is now going into affect and was announced as a Supreme Decree by Peru's Environment Minister, Fabiola Muñoz, and signed by President Martín Vizcarra, back in November.

The decree says the goal is replacing single-use plastics with "reusable, biodegradable plastic or others whose degradation does not generate contamination by micro-plastics or dangerous substances."

At world-famous Machu Picchu, tourists produce an average of 14 tons of solid waste per day, much of it plastic bottles and other single-use packaging.

In December, Peru's Congress had also passed a law to phase out single-use plastic bags across the country over the next three years. According to Peru's Environment Ministry, the country uses 947,000 tons of plastic each year, while 75 percent is thrown out and only 0.3 percent is recycled.

San Diego Bans Styrofoam Food and Drink Containers

San Diego has joined a growing number of cities to ban containers made of polystyrene, better known as Styrofoam-the Dow Chemical trademark name for extruded polystyrene. The ban includes food and drink containers, egg cartons, ice chest coolers, aquatic toys for swimming pools, and mooring buoys and navigation markers. The ocean-side city is the largest in California to ban polystyrene.

Polystyrene's popularity as a container stems from its low cost, strength, insulation, and feather-weight buoyancy. Those properties also made it a scourge of plastic waste because it easily breaks into tiny, often airborne particles that are difficult to clean up and is generally rejected by recycling centers as too much trouble to recyclable.

The San Diego City Council voted 6-to-3 on January 8 to approve the ban, despite objections from owners of small restaurants who complained that the costs of using environmentally degradable containers, such as cardboard or compostable paper, could be double. The council first approved the ban last October for a trial period. This week's vote made the ban permanent.

D.C. Plastic Straw Ban Begins

One New Year's resolution, to use less plastic, is no longer optional for restaurants and other service businesses in Washington, D.C., as of January 1. By July, businesses in the district will begin receiving fines if they continue to offer plastic straws.

A number of local businesses have already started switching to reusable, washable straws or disposable ones made from paper or hay.

The law follows Seattle's ban earlier in 2018 and aims to reduce the impact of plastic straws as litter. More than 4,000 of the disposed items were found in a recent cleanup of the Anacostia River in D.C. Straws are known to hurt wildlife and are difficult to recycle, often ending up as litter. They make up only a tiny fraction of the total marine plastic pollution problem, leading some critics to say they are a distraction, while others say they are an easy place to start.

(Learn about the travel industry's war on straws and where plastic straws came from in the first place.)

Plastic Fact Named Stat of the Year

This week, Great Britain's Royal Statistical Society announced its statistic of the year. It's 90.5%, the estimated amount of plastic waste ever made that has never been recycled. Estimated at 6,300 million metric tonnes, scientists calculated that around 12 percent of all plastic waste has been incinerated, while roughly 79 percent has found its way into landfills or become litter.

That fact comes from a study published in Science Advances, "Production, Use, and Fate of all plastics ever made," by scientists Roland Geyer, Jenna Jambeck (a National Geographic Society fellow on plastic pollution) and Kara Lavender Law.

"We all knew there was a rapid and extreme increase in plastic production from 1950 until now, but actually quantifying the cumulative number for all plastic ever made was quite shocking," Jambeck, a University of Georgia environmental engineer who specializes in studying plastic waste in the oceans, previously told National Geographic.

"I am grateful to the Royal Statistical Society for the acknowledgement of the impact of this statistic, and while sobering, I am glad that it helps to spread awareness about the plastic waste management issues I see on the ground around the globe," Jambeck said in December.

"It's very concerning that such a large proportion of plastic waste has never been recycled," Royal Statistical Society President Sir David Spiegelhalter said in a statement announcing the winning fact. "This statistic helps to show the scale of the challenge we all face."

"Single-Use" Named Word of the Year

Collins Dictionary named "single-use" their word of the year in 2018, citing a four-fold increase in usage since 2013. The term means "made to be used once only" and refers to "items whose unchecked proliferation are blamed for damaging the environment and affecting the food chain," according to a press release from the dictionary's publisher.

Single-use is most often associated with the plastic pollution crisis. Some 40 percent of all plastic produced is used for packaging, much of it used only once and thrown away.

Many efforts to curb the plastic litter crisis are taking aim at single-use plastics, with the goal of encouraging more durable, reusable items.

Aquariums band together for "No Straw November"

November is the month of not shaving facial hair, and now thanks to a new conservation campaign, the month of not using straws.

Branded as "No Straw November," the campaign is a push to eliminate single-use plastic. The effort is led by the Aquarium Conservation Partnership (ACP), comprising 22 aquariums in 17 different states. They're pushing 500 businesses to commit to only serving plastic straws upon request. Already, the ACP has worked with large businesses like United Airlines, the Chicago White Sox, and Dignity Health hospitals.

They hope to commit the additional 500 by Earth Day, April 20, 2019.

The No Straw November campaign is also lobbying cities and regional governments to pass ordinances that encourage businesses to use fewer straws. Individuals are also being asked to sign an online pledge to limit their own personal single-use plastic. The efforts are part of what ACP is labeling a joint "#FirstStep" to plastic-free waterways.

Images of marine animals wrapped in plastic or caught with items like straws in their noses have been widely shared, raising awareness of the public. Aquariums have been leaders in phasing out plastic items at their own facilities.

In an interview discussing plastic straws with National Geographic earlier this year, David Rhodes, the global business director for paper straw manufacturer Aardvark Straws, said some of Aardvark's earliest clients were zoos, aquariums, and cruise ships looking to promote an eco-friendly image to their customers.

The ACP says their efforts to reduce dependence on plastic have already eliminated the need for five million straws over the past year.

Earlier this week, the ACP, partnering with the U.N. and European Commission, announced plans to create a global coalition of 200 aquariums that will campaign against plastic.

250 groups launch massive global plastic partnership

Two hundred and fifty organizations responsible for 20 percent of the plastic packaging produced around the world have committed to reducing waste and pollution.

The initiative is called the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, and it includes a diverse group of members including the city of Austin, clothing company H&M, Unilever, PespsiCo, L'Oreal, Nestle, and Coca-Cola.

The Global Commitment touts a number of high-profile partnerships. It's a collaboration with the United Nations and is being led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Other partners include the World Wide Fund for Nature, the World Economic Forum, the Consumer Goods Forum, and 40 academic institutions.

Ultimately, it's working to promote a circular economy for plastic, a concept that entails reusing or repurposing plastic instead of letting it sit in a landfill. The shift would require building or improving collection and processing facilities, and five venture capital firms have pledged $200 million toward the initiative.

Recycling used items into new products is one of the three targets set by the commitment. Corporations joining the commitment must also phase out single-use plastic packaging and ensure it can either be reused, recycled, or composted by 2025.

"While elements of the EMF Global Commitment are moving in the right direction, the problem is that companies are given the flexibility to continue prioritizing recycling over reduction and reuse," said Ahmad Ashov from Greenpeace Indonesia in a press release. "Corporations are not required to set actual targets to reduce the total amount of single-use plastics they are churning out."

Every 18 months, the targets will be reviewed, and participating businesses must publish data on their progress each year.

Governments that join the commitment are pledging to create policies that help support a circular economy.

EU Parliament approves single-use plastic ban

The European Parliament voted 571-53 this week to approve a measure to slash single-use plastic across the continent. The bill still needs to pass additional procedural measures before it can go into effect, but observers say its chances look good and could begin enforcement as early as 2021.

Citing a need to protect the ocean from a deluge of plastic pollution, the bill calls for a European ban on plastic cutlery and plates, cotton buds, straws, drink-stirrers, and balloon sticks, as well as reductions in other types of single-use plastics like food and beverage containers.

The bill was first proposed in May (see below). Great Britain has a similar effort underway (also see below).

The list of plastic items targeted was carefully selected to include items that already have ready alternatives, supporters say. Items with less available alternatives, such as cigarette filters, are being targeted for a more gradual reduction.

Belgian MEP Frédérique Ries, who proposed the bill, called it "a victory for our oceans, for the environment and for future generations," according to the BBC.

Consumer companies invest in waste collection

To keep plastic pollution from entering waterways, manufacturers either have to stop making it or make sure it's collected at the end of its life. But in some developing nations, that waste collection infrastructure is insufficient or nonexistent.

Circulate Capital, a New York City-based investment firm started in 2018, says they have raised $90 million to invest in this issue in Southeast Asia, a move endorsed by conservation group the Ocean Conservancy. CEO of Circulate Capital Rob Kaplan says this investment will go toward improving plastic waste collection on the ground and creating markets for collected material.

PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Danone, Unilever, and Dow are committed to funding the $90 million investment, and Circulate Capital says a deal will be inked by early 2019. The firm says they are also working on ways for medium and small companies to invest.

"While we are working hard to ensure our packaging is designed to be circular, the reality is that it cannot be reused, recycled or composted without effective waste management systems in place," said Danone's Katharina Stenholm in a press release. She was referring to the concept of a circular economy, in which any waste materials in an industry, such as packaging, are reincorporated into new products.

The majority of the world's ocean plastic comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia, and Circulate Capital is working with scientific advisors, including National Geographic explorer Jenna Jambeck, to pinpoint where their investments can be the most effective.

Plastic bottles, for example, can be collected by small local companies and sold to manufacturers to make new products. Though discarded plastic is often of lower quality, some projects already underway have proved the model can function, and Circulate Capital hopes its investment can lead to new innovations. ( Read about an effort to recycle stranded fishing nets into carpet.)

"There's no silver bullet to stop plastic pollution," says Kaplan. "We're not going to be able to recycle our way out of the problem, and we're not going to be able to reduce our way out of the problem."

But, he hopes Circulate Capital's investments can serve as one piece of the puzzle. He estimates more than a billion dollars would be needed to really build out more efficient waste infrastructure in Southeast Asia. Circulate Capital hopes to bump their commitments to at least $100 million over the next few year as a move in that direction.

Redirecting plastic streams away from the sea

Major companies have been taking steps to eliminate the amount of plastic waste they produce, but what about plastic already in rivers or on beaches that could easily enter the ocean?

That's where NextWave, a coalition founded by companies including Dell and an environmental group called the Lonely Whale, comes in. By employing people living in coastal regions, the group collects discarded plastic within 30 miles of waterways to prevent it from making its way to the sea. So far, NextWave has focused on two types of plastic commonly found in marine environments: Nylon 6 and polypropylene.

This reclaimed plastic is then shipped to manufacturers who reuse it in lieu of producing new plastic. Plastic collection sites are chosen based on where cleanup could have the biggest impact and where the plastic could more easily be taken to an existing recycling facility. These location decisions are informed by science from chemists Jason Lochlin and Jenna Jambeck, a National Geographic explorer.

Today, computer company HP announced it would be joining the NextWave coalition. Since 2016, HP has been working with locals in Haiti to collect a total of 550,000 pounds of plastic that the company has since used to create ink cartridges. According to a press release, HP partnered with a non-profit called the First Mile Coalition, aimed at improving Haitian labor conditions, to create up to 600 jobs collecting plastic bottles.

Along with HP, Ikea has announced that it, too, will partner with NextWave. In addition, the furniture company has committed to phasing out single-use plastics from its stores by 2020, and to designing more sustainably sourced products, including more items made with recycled plastics, by 2030.

Ten companies are now members of NextWave, and they plan to source reclaimed plastics from Indonesia, Chile, the Philippines, Cameroon, and Denmark. NextWave does not yet have numbers for how much plastic they could potentially keep out of the oceans in total, but their website highlights that their partnership with Dell alone kept a total of 3 million pounds of plastic from entering the ocean over the past five years.
Correction: This story has been updated to note that HP worked with the First Mile Coalition in Haiti and to clarify the types of plastic NextWave works with.

American Airlines cuts plastic from lounges

After announcing this summer that they would ban plastic straws and stirrers on their flights (see below), American Airlines now says they will phase out single-use plastic in their lounges.

The airline has lounges in the U.S. and around the world. A representative from the company says the lounges won't serve drinks with straws, and plastic won't be used for flatware. Plastic water bottles will no longer be served, and reusable bags will be given to customers taking food to-go.

Changes to the airlines' lounges are currently going into effect, and onboard straws will be eliminated by November 1. Straws will be available for those who request one, and drink stirrers will be replaced by bamboo sticks.

Cumulatively, the company says their changes will eliminate 71,000 pounds of plastic waste annually.

Foodservice companies phase out single-use plastic

Some 13,000 schools, workplaces, and venues will be plastic bag and stirrer free by 2019, thanks to a new sustainability push by foodservice company Sodexo.

The company provides cafeteria-style meals and concessions to many such clients. Among them is National Geographic's Washington, D.C. headquarters, where compostable utensils and plant-based menus are offered.

Sodexo follows in the footsteps of other foodservice giants, Aramark and Bon Appétit Management, which announced similar sustainability measures this past summer (see below).

In addition to bags and stirrers, Sodexo plans to phase out polystyrene foam (colloquially called Styrofoam) containers by 2025. Plastic straws, a controversial item, will now only be available by request, which the company hopes will cut down on customer usage.

The move, says a representative from the company, will eliminate 245 million single use items that would have otherwise been used at its locations.

The decision is being applauded by environmental groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, who say that reducing consumption is a key step toward preventing plastic from entering landfills and marine environments. These non-profit groups are increasingly imploring food servers to cut back on the single-use plastic items they buy and sell to customers.

"As a company serving consumers in universities, workplaces, hospitals, schools, stadiums, and so many other venues, we understand both the potential impact we can make through a commitment to reduction and the real benefit that some of these products bring to people every day," Sodexo's vice president for corporate responsibility, Ted Monk, said in a press release.

President Trump Signs Bill to Clean Up Ocean Plastics

President Trump called out other nations, including China and Japan, for "making our oceans into their landfills" when he signed legislation last week to improve efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world's oceans.

"As president, I will continue to do everything I can to stop other nations from making our oceans into their landfills," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. "That's why I'm please-very pleased, I must say-to put my signature on this important legislation."

The law, passed with bipartisan support, amends the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Act and funds the program through 2022. The law fosters efforts to clean up plastic trash from the world's oceans and encourages federal trade negotiators to prod "leaders of nations responsible for the majority of marine debris" to improve management of waste that ends up in the oceans.

Trump agreed with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the bill's co-sponsors, that trade talks with the Philippines should include plastic waste. "We're okay with that," he said. "I understand. A lot comes from there."

Trump also blamed other unnamed countries that "abuse the oceans" and whose trash floats to the West Coast of the United States," creating, he said, "a very unfair situation."

"It's incredible. It's incredible when you look at it," Trump said. "People don't realize it, but all the time we're being inundated by debris from other countries."

Comparatively, the beaches of the United States are among the world's cleanest. Kamilo Beach in Hawaii, which faces the Pacific gyre, where ocean trash collects, is the exception. But most of the world's plastic trash collects in coastal regions and on beaches in developing nations that lack adequate municipal waste collection systems.

Japan has had for years one of the world's highest recycling rates and earlier this year, China stopped buying the world's trash. The United States was one of the top sellers of recycled plastic to China.

The president's full remarks are here, and the text of the Save Our Seas Act is here.

Red Lobster Phasing Out Plastic Straws

The world's largest seafood restaurant company, Red Lobster, announced Monday that it will begin only offering plastic straws upon customer request starting this November in its 700 restaurants. By 2020, the company plans to only offer a more eco-friendly alternative to plastic straws.

The company says the shift should eliminate more than 150 million plastic straws per year, with the goal of reducing the marine plastic pollution problem.

"We are proud to be the first large casual dining restaurant company to make a commitment to eliminate plastic straws from our restaurants," Kim Lopdrup, CEO of Red Lobster, said in a statement. "This is a meaningful step in our long-standing commitment to protect and preserve the world's oceans and marine life. We hope our work helps raise awareness around the issue of plastic straws and encourages other businesses to make similar changes."

Red Lobster says it is looking into alternatives to plastic straws that will still meet the needs of customers with disabilities. (Learn more about plastic straw bans and how the travel industry is cutting back on plastic straws.)

California Approves Bill to Limit Straw Use in Restaurants

California has become the first state to implement a partial ban on plastic straws. Dine-in restaurants will no longer be allowed to automatically provide customers with straws. Instead, customers who need plastic straws will have to request them.

Restaurants that violate the ban will receive warnings first, and repeat offenders will be fined at a maximum of $300.

"Plastic has helped advance innovation in our society, but our infatuation with single-use convenience has led to disastrous consequences. Plastics, in all forms-straws, bottles, packaging, bags, etc.-are choking the planet," California's governor Jerry Brown said in a statement.

The new ban comes on the heels of previous plastic straw bans from companies and cities. Earlier this year, Seattle become the first large municipality to ban plastic straws in restaurants. Large corporations like United Airlines and Disney have also announced this year that they intend to phase plastic straws out of their offerings to customers. Many of these businesses and cities have said they will retain a stock of plastic straws available to customers upon request.

While some environmentalists applaud the move to reduce single-use plastic-plastic that's used once and then thrown away-bans on plastic straws have been met with some controversy.

Republican lawmakers in California opposed the ban, saying it would burden small business and do little to fight the larger plastic pollution crisis. Plastic straws make up less than one percent of the plastic found at sea.

Disability advocates also say straw bans place an unfair burden on people who have conditions that don't allow them to easily drink without straws. Some alternatives like paper fall apart and metal harm the inside of a person's mouth, they say.

Although California isn't the only region moving to limit single use plastic, the state has often tried to lead the nation in environmental legislation, particularly after what Gov. Brown says is a vacuum left by the Trump administration's decision to leave the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement.
Read the brief history of how plastic straws took over the world.

Giant Trash Collector Heads to Pacific Garbage Patch

The campaign to rid the world's oceans of plastic trash marks a turning point on Saturday as a giant, floating trash collector steams out of San Francisco on a mission to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Over the course of the next year, the device will undergo the ultimate tests and face some tough questions: Can technology prevail over nature? Did the engineers at The Ocean Cleanup in the Netherlands invent the first feasible method for extracting large amounts of plastic debris from the sea? Or will the wilds of the open Pacific tear it to shreds, turning the cleaner itself into plastic trash? Alternately, even if a Pacific storm does not devour the device, will it attract marine animals such as dolphins and turtles and fatally entangle them?

"I don't think it's going to work, but I hope it does," says George Leonard, the Ocean Conservancy's chief scientist. "The ocean needs all the help it can get."

United Airlines Bans Plastic Straws from Flights

United Airlines today joined others in the travel industry by banning plastic straws and cocktail picks on their flights.

The airline will instead use a biodegradable bamboo alternative, starting in November.

Alaska and American airlines moved to ban plastic straws earlier this year, and some cities, like Seattle, have outlawed their use entirely.

As one of the reasons for switching to a more sustainable form of straw, United cited this alarming fact: "Because straws don't biodegrade and are nearly impossible to recycle, it's likely that every straw ever used still exists on our planet."

"It's a small, but meaningful step to help minimize the impact plastic products have on our environment," the company said in a press release.

Carlsberg Beer Dumps Plastic Can Rings

Danish brewer Carlsberg will become the first beer producer to ditch those evil plastic multipack rings that hold beer and other cans together for holders made of recyclable glue, according to a company press release.

Carlsberg also says it will cut the amount of plastic used in its traditional can holders by 76 percent.

Here's how the glue-packs work: A drop of super-strong, temperature-tolerant glue is stuck on the side of a can, connecting it to the can next to it. If you want a beer, snap off a can. The glue will be recycled along with the can when it's recycled.

Carlsberg described the move as a "world first for the beer industry."

Disney Announces Ban on Plastic Straws

The Walt Disney Company announced a ban on single-use plastic straws and stirrers at nearly all its theme parks and resorts. The policy, which is set to be in place by mid-2019, will cut down on the upwards of 175 million straws and 13 million stirrers that are used at these locations each year.

Paper straws will be available upon request and, for guests with disabilities, the company is developing alternative options for traditional plastic straws. Disney will also eliminate polystyrene cups at its parks and cut down its reliance on single-use plastic bags. Instead of disposable bags, guests will have the option to buy reusable shopping bags.

Additionally, the company will reduce the amount of plastic in guest rooms by 80 percent. Over the next few years, Disney will transition to refillable amenities in hotels and on cruise ships. When single-use plastics cannot be reduced, Disney will continue to recycle and properly dispose of waste, the company says.

Disney has other conservation measures in place. In Orlando at Disney's Animal Kingdom, plastic straws and cup lids have been banned since the park opened in 1998.

Other theme parks, including SeaWorld, Busch Gardens, and Sesame Place, have announced initiatives to phase out straws and other single-use plastics. Earlier this month, Seattle banned plastic straws, and San Francisco is working to ban straws and other plastic items starting July 1, 2019.
In July 2018, Disney was approved to purchase 21st Century Fox, the parent company of National Geographic.

National Geographic Travel Partner Bans Single-Use Plastics

On July 25, Lindblad Expeditions, an adventure cruise company that has teamed up with National Geographic Expeditions, announced it had become 100 percent free of single-use plastics. Now, disposable plastic bottles, cups, straws, and stirrers are entirely banned from the fleet's 13 ships.

"The ocean is under major assault on so many fronts, and its protection is both a business mission and a personal passion," Lindblad Expeditions CEO Sven Lindblad says in a press release. "The health of our planet is dependent on our oceans, and it is essential that we change our behavior with regard to plastics."

Lindblad is known for its trips all over the world, particularly to places like Alaska and the Galápagos Islands. The company began working toward this plastic-free goal in 2007 when it banned single-use water bottles from its ships. Instead, it gave guests stainless steel bottles that could be refilled at filtered water stations on the ships. According to a study by the Adventure Travel Trade Association and the nonprofit Travelers Against Plastic, the average adventure travel operator uses nearly 30,000 single-use plastic bottles each year.

About 80 percent of tourism takes place near coastal areas, putting our oceans at a higher risk of plastic pollution. When packing for air travel, consider using three-ounce reusable containers for your toiletries and load them into a durable transparent washbag instead of a plastic bag. On flights, bring your own earphones and turn down "comfort bag" items wrapped in plastic. Bring your reusable water bottle with you and fill it up when you can.

For more tips, read how one of our writers attempted to explore Belize plastic-free.

Big Companies Take Aim at Plastic Straws

Retail, restaurant, and consumer-facing companies could potentially make a big impact in the fight to reduce plastic straw use. They drive much of the demand for straws from plastic manufacturers.

But these businesses are increasingly responding to consumer pressure.

Starbucks is among the most recent companies to announce they'll ditch plastic straws-in this case by the end of 2020. Instead of getting sucked up through a straw, their cold drinks will be served in containers with special plastic lids. Those lids are less likely to get stuck up a turtle's nose and should prove more recyclable than straws, but the company has still received some pushback because the lids are still made of plastic.

McDonald's is also planning to phase out plastic straws at their UK and Ireland locations, coinciding with UK and EU proposals to cut down single-use plastic.

Among the other companies that have moved to reduce how much they use plastic: Bacardi Rum plans to cut their straw usage over the next two years by a billion, food service management giants Bon Appétit Management and Aramark plan to reduce their single-use plastics by 2019 and 2022, respectively, Alaska Airlines will begin phasing out plastic straws this summer, and American Airlines will begin phasing out plastic straws this summer.

It remains to be seen if companies follow through on their goals, and it's clear that banning plastic straws is not going to solve the whole pollution problem. Supporters say reducing our use of straws is an easy first step, while detractors say it could distract from more important issues. In either case, taking aim at plastic straws has become rather fashionable this summer.

Chile's Ban on Retail Plastic Bags Stands

Chile's Constitutional Court ratified a bill that bans retail use of plastic bags across the country on July 6, ruling against an appeal that had been filed by the plastics industry. In June, Chile's Congress had unanimously approved the new ban, citing concerns of plastic pollution in the ocean and on land.

The country's Association of Industrial Plastics had sued to block the new law on constitutional grounds. But the court rejected their arguments.

Large retailers will have six months to phase out single-use plastic bags, while small businesses will have up to two years. The ban builds on a law passed under the previous president that had called for a prohibition on plastic bags along the country's 4,000-mile coastline.

In announcing the new ban, Marcela Cubillos, Chile's environment minister, told the New York Times, "We are convinced that our coast imposes an obligation to be leaders in cleaning up our oceans."

Chile's ban is the first country-wide one in the Americas. Similar bans have been passed in China, Kenya, France, and elsewhere. Many regional and local areas have bans or other restrictions, including taxes or fees aimed at discouraging the use of single-use plastic bags.

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City to Ban Plastic Straws and Utensils

In an attempt to reduce the amount of plastic waste polluting the land and water, Seattle banned the use of plastic straws and utensils in bars and restaurants starting July 1.

The roughly 5,000 eateries in the city are being encouraged to eschew providing straws or disposable utensils, or at least to switch to paper alternatives. A less green but still legal option, according to the city, is compostable plastic straws or utensils.

"Plastic pollution is surpassing crisis levels in the world's oceans, and I'm proud Seattle is leading the way and setting an example for the nation by enacting a plastic straw ban," Seattle Public Utilities General Manager Mami Hara said in a statement.

A similar ban that was proposed for Hawaii was defeated by opposition from industry. Other proposed bans are being debated in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., among other places.

Some advocates for the disabled have warned that straw bans need to take into account special needs. ( Learn more about the history of plastic straws and other efforts to remove them.)

<p>A whale shark swims beside a plastic bag in the Gulf of Aden near Yemen. Although <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/facts/whale-shark">whale sharks</a> are the biggest fish in the sea, they're still threatened by ingesting small bits of plastic.</p>

EU, UK, and India Propose Plastic Bans

In draft rules released May 28, the European Commission proposed a ban on 10 common items that it says make up about 70 percent of the litter in EU waters. This includes plastic straws, drink stirrers, plates, and more.

The rules would still need approval from member states and the European Parliament to move forward. They would likely not go into effect for several years.

The proposed law would also mandate that EU countries collect and recycle 90 percent of plastic bottles by 2025. Plastic producers would be on the hook for most of the expense of waste management and cleanup efforts.

In April, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced her intent to establish a ban in her country on sales of single-use plastics, including straws and cotton swab handles.

Calling plastic waste "one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world," May said she would work with industry to develop alternatives. An estimated 8.5 billion plastic straws are tossed out in the U.K. every year.

On June 5, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. With a fast-growing economy and population of 1.3 billion, India struggles to manage its vast waste stream, and is a significant contributor to global ocean plastic.

"Let us all join together to beat plastic pollution and make this planet a better place to live," Modi said.

Experts caution that Modi's goal is far from being realized, and would likely take significant changes and investment from industry and the public. Already, industry lobbyists have taken aim at the efforts. The state of Maharashtra, home to megacity Mumbai, eased a ban on single-use plastic just a week after it unveiled the plan this summer. The state is working on a number of exemptions, for plastic of a certain thickness, products of a certain size, medical equipment, and other uses.

National Geographic is committed to reducing plastics pollution. Learn more about our non-profit activities at natgeo.org/plastics. This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A running list of action on plastic pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is waking up to a crisis of ocean plastic-and we're tracking the developments and solutions as they happen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS News

Of all the cases working their way through the federal court system none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana v. United States. To quote one federal judge, "This is no ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels. They say it's causing climate change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. When the lawsuit began hardly anyone took it seriously, including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the Supreme Court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.

The case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States. The lead plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect spotted owls. Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.

Kelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was literally off the charts. I mean, it was so bad it was past severe, in terms of danger to health.

Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.

Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.

It's not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people who will have to deal with them for the long term.

"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."

Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?

Kelsey Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my generation and all the generations to come.

She was 19 when the lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth grade.

Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?

Levi Draheim: Yeah...

He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.

Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?

Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.

Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.

Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.

Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.

Levi Draheim: Yes.

The plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.

Steve Kroft: So what is this?

Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together...

It documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

Julia Olson: So during President Johnson's administration, they issued a report in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.

Whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.

Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.

Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big threat.

Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and warned about it for 50 years?

Julia Olson: No. They admit that the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those facts of the case.

The legal proceedings have required the government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s... That global carbon dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6 million years... That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels. And the government acknowledges that climate change's effects on agriculture will have consequences for food scarcity.

Steve Kroft: So you've got them with their own words.

Julia Olson: We have them with their own words. It's really the clearest, most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.

The lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air, water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.

Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."

Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.

Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.

Julia Olson: For the better.

Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.

Julia Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have never seen before.

The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.

Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?

Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.

In November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."

Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?

Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.

The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.

Ann Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.

Ann Carlson is a professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.

Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.

Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?

Ann Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health, and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look, If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?

Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?

Ann Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe climate. That would be enormous.

So enormous that the Trump administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.

Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.

Steve Kroft: Why?

Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.

Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.

Julia Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.

The Justice Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings, in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United States government.

In other words, it's not responsible.

Steve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they causing it?

Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government has made.

Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?

Julia Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.

Julia Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.

Ann Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic things. This might be the biggest.

Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?

Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here is the law.

The next oral arguments in Juliana v. United States are scheduled for June in Portland. But whatever happens next will certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48 hours.

Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.

For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.
Produced by Draggan Mihailovich. Associate producers, Katie Brennan and Chrissy Jones
Trending News

Steve Kroft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Illinois could become latest state to ban hunting with drones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hunting and fishing should be done "the old way" and not with gadgets like drones where the animal wouldn't stand a chance, drone opponents say. But scouting could be the exception.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Contagious measles cases at highest incidence rate in 25 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Measles cases are at a 25-year high across the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The path to innovation is not always a smooth, straight line. In some cases, it's U-shaped.

In September, a 2,000-foot-long floating barrier, shaped like a U, was dispatched to the Great Pacific garbage patch between Hawaii and California, where roughly 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic have formed a floating field of debris roughly twice the size of Texas. Made of connected plastic pipes, the barrier was meant to catch and clean-up the plastic.

Invented by Boyan Slat when he was just 17, the barrier has so far done some of what it was designed to accomplish. It travels with wind and wave propulsion, like a U-shaped Pac-Man hungry for plastic. It orients itself in the wind and it catches and concentrates plastic, sort of.

But as Slat, now 24, recently discovered with the beta tester for his design, plastic occasionally drifts out of its U-shaped funnel. The other issue with the beta tester, called System 001, is that last week, a 60-feet-long end section broke off.

The first issue, Slat said, was likely due to the device's speed. In a September interview with NPR, he said the device averages about four inches per second, which his team has now concluded is too slow. The break in the barrier was due to an issue with the material used to build it.

"In principle, I think we are relatively close to getting it working," Slat said in an interview Saturday with NPR's Michel Martin. "It's just that sometimes the plastic is also escaping again. Likely what we have to do is we have to speed up the system so that it constantly moves faster than the plastic."

For the material failure, Slat said his team will probably try to locally reinforce the system to combat the problem of material fatigue.

"If you have a paper clip and you move that back and forward many times, essentially the material gets weaker," he said. "That's likely what has happened with material of the cleanup system."

Slat and the team at his nonprofit, The Ocean Cleanup, are now bringing the system back to Hawaii for repairs and upgrades. Slat told NPR in 2016 that his structure is 10 times further away from land than the world's most remote oil rig, subject to battering waves and storms.

When the material failure occurred, it wasn't due to the result of a major Pacific storm. It was just normal wear and tear, Slat said.

"We've had conditions twice as worse as we had last weekend, but the system already sort of moved back and forth about 1.5 million times since it's been out there," he said.

With an estimated cost of $24.6 million reported by Forbes, and a challenging work environment, the project is high-risk and Slat hopes, high-reward.

But experts on plastic pollution have expressed concerns about the project's effectiveness.

George Leonard, chief scientist at Ocean Conservancy, told NPR in September that only 3 to 5 percent of the total amount of ocean plastic actually winds up in systems of circulating currents. He estimates that about 8 million metric tons of plastic go into the ocean each year - roughly the equivalent of one dump truck full of plastic every minute.

Critics say efforts should be aimed at preventing plastics from going into the ocean in the first place, and that Slat's barrier project could divert resources away from that goal. Others have expressed concern about the barrier's impact on marine wildlife.

Slat said that marine wildlife is be able to safely pass underneath a 10-foot deep screen under the pipe meant to catch debris. However, Wired reported that the pipes could attract and lead animals straight into plastic-polluted waters, and may also shed nano-sized particles of plastic into the water when hit with the sun's rays.

The concern is that ultraviolet light from the sun can potentially disintegrate the plastic, but The Ocean Cleanup responded by telling Wired that the high-density polyethylene plastic used in their tubes can reflect UV radiation.

Slat's confidence in his design hasn't wavered, and said he was unfazed by the current setbacks.

"Considering the things we have been able to prove in the past few months and considering the problems that we have faced, they seem quite solvable," he said. "I'm confident that the team will be able to design appropriate solutions for this and that we'll have the system back in the patch in a few months from now."

His team hopes to make the system fully operational sometime this year. If the project succeeds, Slat's vision is to deploy a fleet of 60 more devices, projected to remove half of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch's plastic within five years.

In this vision, one he has held since his teens, support vessels would act like ocean garbage trucks; ships would carry the plastics back to land, where they would be processed, recycled, and reused - not dumped back into the ocean.
The audio for this story was produced by Dana Cronin and edited by Natalie Winston.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Engineering Wunderkind's Ocean Plastics Cleanup Device Hits A Setback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four months into its testing phase, the Ocean Cleanup's plastic-catching device isn't catching as much plastic as intended.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), the legal partner of UC Berkley's Undocumented Students' Program, assists with all DACA-related petitions, including Initial DACA, DACA Renewals and Advance Parole.

Those who are seeking assistance with their DACA renewals and Advance Parole applications can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. Please review the eligibility guidelines found here before making an appointment ; your appointment will be cancelled if you are not eligible for services through this program .

Even if you are scheduling an appointment for family member, the UC Berkeley student must be the one to schedule the appointment under their name. The booking form will indicate where to list your family member's information.

Please make sure to list the DACA status expiration date and you and your family member's income where indicated on the booking form. Without that information, it will be very hard for our team to accurately prioritize your consultation, and we may even have to cancel the consultation if we do not have that information.

Please note that due to a high demand for services, the next available appointment time may be for a date many weeks from now.

Even if none of the available appointment times work for you, or you have a deadline that falls before the next available appointment, please still fill out an appointment request anyway and be as detailed as possible in your appointment request. Our office reviews consultation requests several times in the work week (Monday through Friday) and contacts people who self-identify as having an urgent deadline to possibly meet with you sooner. We also use the information gathered in the appointment request to determine your eligibility for fee assistance for DACA, DACA Advance Parole, and other immigration relief applications.
What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
DACA is an administrative relief that protects eligible immigrants who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. DACA gives undocumented immigrants: 1) protection from deportation, and 2) a work permit. The program requires that the DACA status and work permit be renewed every two years.
DACA TODAY
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum noting his administration's intent to both preserve and fortify DACA. While it is not yet clear what the word "fortify" may mean for the future of DACA, it is apparent that this administration has - at the very least - committed to preserving DACA in its original form.

If you want to read more about the timeline of DACA and more information about the DACA program today, you can visit:
Texas v United States: A Timeline of The Fight to Protect DACA | MALDEF DACA REQUIREMENTS

You were under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012;

You first came to the United States before your 16th birthday;

You have lived continuously in the United States from June 15, 2007 until the present;

You were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time you apply;

You came to the United States without "valid" documents before June 15, 2012, or your lawful status expired as of June 15, 2012;

You are currently studying, or you graduated from high school or earned a certificate of completion of high school or GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or military (technical and trade school completion also qualifies); and

You have NOT been convicted of a felony, certain significant misdemeanors, or three or more misdemeanors of any kind. Consult with an attorney about ANY contact you have had with law enforcement or immigration authorities before applying.

INITIAL DACA APPLICATIONS
Initial DACA applications (for those people who are applying for the very first time) can be submitted to USCIS but are not currently being reviewed or approved by USCIS. You can find up to date information . We will also keep this page updated.

UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.
DACA RENEWALS
All DACA renewals are being accepted by USCIS. Please get help and do not apply alone. UC Berkeley students who need assistance with their DACA renewals can use our online appointment system to book an appointment with the USP legal team/East Bay Community Law Center. We strongly recommend that you schedule an appointment to renew your DACA 6 months before expiration. If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions. See below for detailed list of required documents. Reminder to only send copies (not originals) of support documents.

Please note: USCIS treats requests filed a year or more after the expiration as initial DACA requests and is currently prevented from approving them. Please see above for more information about Initial DACA applications.

Complete DACA renewal Applications :

G-28 - Notice of Entry of Appearance As Attorney (Optional)

G-1145 - E-Notification (Optional)

Form I-821D - Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals;

Form I-765 - Application for Employment Authorization (work permit);

Form I-765WS - Worksheet explaining your economic need to work; and

Copy of front/back of current Employment Authorization Document (work permit).

Submit Applications: Include all supporting documents, two passport-sized photos and fees. The fee is $495.00 (pay using a check or money order payable to Department of Homeland Security). If you are a UC Berkeley student, your application fees will be covered by USP. Mail to: USCIS Phoenix Lockbox, PO Box 20700, Phoenix, Arizona 85036-0700. As of April 12, 2022, USCIS announced that individuals may now file their DACA renewal online.

Background Check and Fingerprints: You will receive a receipt by mail that contains your receipt number and an appointment notice to get your fingerprints and photo (biometrics) taken for a background check.

Final Steps: Once you have been fingerprinted, you will receive either a letter asking for additional information (called a Request for Evidence) or a final decision. According to USCIS, the current processing time for DACA renewals are 3 to 3.5 months. You can find the most up to date information about processing times .

What is DACA Advance Parole?
DACA Advance Parole is an administrative procedure that allows a person inside the United States, who seeks to travel abroad, to receive advance authorization to re-enter the United States upon their return.
DACA ADVANCE PAROLE REQUIREMENTS
Individuals that have already received deferred action under DACA may request permission to temporarily travel outside of the United States through advance parole.

USCIS will currently only grant advance parole to DACA recipients if the travel abroad is in furtherance of one of the following categories:

1. Humanitarian purposes, including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or visiting an ailing relative;

2. Educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic research; or

3. Employment purposes such as overseas assignments, interviews, conferences, training, or meetings with clients overseas.

Travel for purely vacation purposes is not a valid basis for advance parole for DACA recipients. APPLYING FOR DACA ADVANCE PAROLE
UC Berkeley students who are interested in applying for DACA Advance Parole, we recommend scheduling an appointment at least 13 - 16 months prior to your expected travel date on our online appointment system . If you cannot make one of these appointment times, or if you are unable to make any of the available appointment times, and/or if you have an urgent matter, please make an appointment using the online system anyway and then also contact the USP legal team at usplegal@ebclc.org . Please allow at least 3 business days for staff to get back to you. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

We acknowledge that this may be difficult and even frustrating for students to have to make plans so far in advance. This is our recommendation based on the posted processing times and our real-time experience with these applications. We believe that following these timeframes will help our clients be as successful as possible in their legal cases. **If you need an Advance Parole document to travel for an urgent reason, like a family member abroad is seriously ill or to attend a funeral, please schedule an appointment ASAP so that we can review your options.**

Requirements to Request DACA Advance Parole:

Have a valid passport from your home country.

In evaluating the advance parole application, USCIS will look at the evidence submitted by the applicant to support their reason for travel outside the United States. Any supporting documents submitted in a language other than English must be accompanied by a full, certified English translation. The instructions to Form I-131 and the Standard Operating Procedure for DACA list some examples of appropriate evidence for requesting advance parole under each of the three categories.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for humanitarian purposes should show "emergent, compelling or sympathetic circumstances," and might include:

Documentation of a family member's serious illness or death, such as a letter from a hospital or treating physician explaining the family member's illness or a death certificate of a deceased relative, or

A letter from the applicant's physician explaining the nature of the applicant's medical condition, the specific medical treatment sought outside of the United States, and a brief explanation of why travel outside of the United States is medically necessary. *Note: If the reason for traveling is connected to a family member, it is generally advisable to also include evidence proving the family relationship between the DACA recipient and the person they are visiting.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for educational purposes may include:

A letter from the applicant's educational institution or from an employee of the institution acting in their official capacity explaining why the travel is required or beneficial; and

A document showing enrollment in a specific program or class requiring travel.

Evidence to support an advance parole application for employment purposes must show that the travel relates to "fulfilling job requirements," and may include:

A letter from the applicant's employer describing the need for travel; or

A document showing a specific employment need, such as a conference program that also shows the applicant's participation

RISKS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF ADVANCE PAROLE
Risks :

Even with advance parole, there is no guarantee that a DACA recipient will be allowed to re-enter the U.S. after traveling, as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have discretion to deny entry. Speak to your legal representative before you decide to apply and travel outside of the U.S. It is important that any travel with advance parole is consistent with the dates and purpose stated in the approved application.

Before applying for advance parole, be sure to talk to your legal representative about the following:

your history of entries into the U.S., particularly if you exited and re-entered the U.S.;

any interaction with the police;

any documents you received that indicated you need to go to immigration court;

any time you went to immigration court;

any other issues that you think may affect your immigration status

Potential path to permanent residency (i.e. green card) via advance parole :

Advance parole can be very helpful for a DACA recipient who has (or may have in the future) a family member that is:

a U.S. citizen spouse,

a U.S. citizen parent (if you are under 21 and unmarried),

or a U.S. citizen child at least 21 years old

If you have one of the types of family members listed above, called "immediate relatives" in immigration practice, you could be eligible to apply for permanent residency. That is because people who came to the U.S. without permission are considered "inadmissible," which can make it difficult or impossible for the permanent residency application to be successful. However, traveling outside of the U.S. and re-entering with advance parole overcomes the inadmissibility problem, because an entry into the U.S. with advance parole is an entry with permission. There are more factors to consider so talk to your attorney about this option.
Information provided by East Bay Community Law Center, usplegal@ebclc.org. Last updated on 06/07/2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is DACA? - Undocumented Student Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a kind of administrative relief from deportation which protects eligible immigrant youth from deportation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s evident the debate over climate change is a heated one. Are skeptics clouding the public judgment for money? Are climate-change believers merely alarmists who risk the present for the future?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ... another drone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drone use has increased dramatically over the last two years, despite federal regulations that all but ban them. Reports of drones flying within striking distance of aircraft are especially troubling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Anti-vaccine movement may have led to chickenpox outbreak in North Carolina

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A severe chickenpox outbreak has occurred in a North Carolina county that has among the highest rates of anti-vaccine religious exemptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic Oceans
There are increasing high levels of man-made pollution in many of the world's seas and little actually disappears. By 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans.
We live on a blue planet; the world's oceans cover three quarters of the Earth. They contain 97% of the Earth's water and are currently absorbing around a third of the CO2 being produced by our activities and so helping in part by acting a buffer for some of the impacts of climate change. (30 to 40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, resulting in the creation of carbonic acid.) Ocean acidification is therefore a rising concern. The average pH balance is dropping and as a result the growth of calcifying organisms such as corals and shellfish is being reduced. Acidification alone, though, is not the only pollution problem faced by the world's seas, and others are escalating at an even faster rate. The impacts and implications are huge and growing.

Around 80% of marine pollution comes from land-based activities. Waste runs or is dumped into drains and rivers and hence the seas. Oil, fertilisers, sewage, plastics and toxic chemicals are all part of the mix. Oil spills are less frequent but in many countries without an established recycling system, used oil is thrown down the drain or poured directly into rivers. Nutrients in fertiliser runoff from farms and lawns produce algae, depleting dissolved oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing dead zones in places such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Baltic. In many regions, untreated sewage still flows into the seas - 80% of urban sewage discharged into the Mediterranean is untreated. A recent addition to the challenge is the role of desalination plants, cropping up in areas of water stress from the Middle East to Australia and California. As a core by-product of their water purification process, they add salt into the seas, so increasing salinity and hence acute toxicity.

While all of the pollutants are having severe negative impact, perhaps the most visible - hence one that will drive the biggest change in the next decade - is plastic. Around 275 million tons of plastic waste is generated each year around the world; between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tons is either washed or dumped deliberately into the sea. The World Bank expects the planet's municipal solid waste to double within 15 years, much of this in the form of single-use plastic items. Bottles, bags, balloons, packaging, shoes - all take decades to break down. This waste is ingested by pretty much every marine animal including fish, dolphins, seals and turtles. So far, plastic has been found to be blocking the digestive tracts of at least 267 different species.

Although this is a global problem, the epicentre of plastic pollution is clear. Today 60% of the plastic waste in the ocean comes from just 5 countries - China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The media already talks about the Great Pacific Garbage patch. By 2025, plastic consumption in Asia will increase by 80%, surpassing 200 million tons; some are calling for specific interventions in these 5 countries. Regionally, the EU is aiming to halve plastic bag use by 2018 but this is not an international standard. Industry experts expect that by 2050 we will be producing three times as much plastic as we do today; on a volume basis, the WEF sees that by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans.

Plastic pollution is however not alone as an increasing danger to the world's seas. One politically sensitive issue now is associated with dredging and land reclamation. Whether in the South China seas, where China is creating islands built on coral reefs, or in Indonesia, where sand mining has been providing Singapore with the resource to add 130 square kilometres of artificial 'reclaimed' land in the past 40 years, mining has evidently moved from land to sea.

With all the consequences of our actions now becoming apparent, the question is what will change going forward? Has ocean pollution become such a significant issue that there will be tangible change within the next decade? Some think so. Foremost, and largely because of plastic waste, the visibility of the impact is clear in the media and policy bodies. The UN has included as its 14 th Sustainable Development Goal the ambition to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources." A core 2025 objective is to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, especially land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.

Unfortunately, much of the world's oceans are not part of any one country's territorial waters. More than 40 per cent of the planet's surface (80 million square miles - seven times the area of the whole African continent) is ocean that belongs to everyone and no one - and hence is largely unregulated. While fishing, environmental, tourist and defence policies all unite to seek to protect and manage the sea close to a nation's shoreline, beyond a notional 12 to 200-mile limits it is largely a free-for-all. This is where the fish, dolphins and plankton are taking the hit. No one is setting the global rules and few are agreeing on a better way.

When will the balance tip? When will the negative impacts on our environment, the ecology and, most significantly from a financial perspective, a good share of our food resources start to change attitudes? Some are putting their faith in China to set new standards, but these may only apply locally. At a global level some see that a rethinking of the value of the 'blue-economy' is required. The Global Ocean Commission, for one, has called for adoption of an ambitious, long-term goal of zero plastic waste into the marine environment. This will require partnerships and behaviour changes that simply do not exist today, and the end of Europe and the US shipping its waste to Asia. If we start to see waste as a resource in the next decade, will perceptions - and maybe behaviours - shift?

Whether seeking to protect food supplies or looking to fulfil UN development goals, bringing order to the high seas is seen as critical for the future. We have already overshot the planetary limits on biodiversity and nitrogen; as the consequences become more apparent, can we avoid the same for ocean pollution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are increasing high levels of man-made pollution in many of the world's seas and little actually disappears. By 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans. We live on a blue planet; the world's oceans cover three quarters of the Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to get help if you are facing deportation. Locate someone who is detained by ICE, and know how to report an immigration violation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the time the final meeting of this year's global climate summit was gaveled into session in Katowice, Poland, it was past 9 p.m. on Saturday. Exhausted negotiators were more than 24 hours past their deadline, and workmen were already starting to disassemble the conference venue around them.

But Michał Kurtyka, the Polish official presiding over the meeting, told delegates it was worth it.

"You have worked on this package for three years," he said. "Every single step forward is a big achievement. And through this package, you have made a thousand little steps forward, together. You can feel proud."

Soon after, nearly 200 countries unanimously agreed to new rules governing international action on global warming - and kept alive an international effort to combat climate change that has often seemed on rocky ground.

The accord is a follow-up to the breakthrough 2015 Paris Agreement, in which countries committed to keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The "rule book" adopted in Katowice sets out how countries should measure their greenhouse gas emissions, report on emissions cuts and hold each other accountable.

"The rule book puts meat on the bones of Paris, enabling it to operate," said Sue Biniaz, who was the state department's top lawyer on climate change for decades and helped draft the Paris Agreement. "It would have been hard to imagine this extensive a rule book a few short months ago."

That's in part because of the political backdrop. President Donald Trump has said he will pull the US out of the agreement as soon as he can, in 2020, and delegates worry that Brazil's new president could follow the US out the door. Meanwhile, key members of the European Union, including the UK, Germany and France are distracted by politics at home. And the US and China, who together drove the Paris Agreement, are in a standoff over trade.

Related: US a wild card as climate negotiators race to meet Friday deadline

"Who would have thought five years ago that you would have China, the US, Brazil and Europe all committing to a binding set of rules?" said Jennifer Morgan, the head of Greenpeace International.

But for Morgan and many others, the agreement in Katowice did not go far enough. Advocates pointed out that pledges made by countries so far won't cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Morgan said it was a major failure that the final agreement didn't include a strong commitment that countries would increase their ambitions as fast as the current science indicates is necessary to avoid the worst warming.

"A rule book alone is not going to get us there," Morgan said. "We have a climate emergency right now. And I expect leaders to take that seriously and go beyond their comfort zones to stand up for the most vulnerable in their own countries and around the world."

What's in it?

Under the Paris Agreement, countries must set a goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions - and then every five years, they must report on what they've achieved, compare global progress to the overall goals of the Paris Agreement and make new pledges to reduce emissions even more.

The agreement was designed to ratchet up emissions cuts over time. But that process only works if countries can hold each other accountable, said Camilla Born, of the climate think tank E3G.

The Katowice package sets that framework, creating standards for reporting emissions. The agreement also includes transparency guidelines so that countries can verify each other's progress - guidelines that the US and China were credited with jointly negotiating.

It also solved one of the long-running points of contention in climate talks by ensuring that all countries - developed and developing countries alike - will eventually face the same reporting standards. China and developing nations had resisted a common standard for years, arguing that it was unfair to hold them to standards they might not have the capacity to meet.

"The fact that we have one set of rules is really important," Born said, adding that it lets countries essentially compare apples to apples.

The agreement also includes a process for rich countries to increase the amount of money they will pay to help poorer countries adapt to climate change. Developing countries say current commitments are still nowhere near enough, but Born said it's a start.

"They'll provide greater clarity and predictability on that finance," Born said. "What that means is developing countries can plan to deliver climate action with the certainty that money will come and help them do that."

What's not in it?

Many countries were infuriated when the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked language "welcoming" a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded the world must limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius or face catastrophic impacts. Ultimately, the final agreement included weaker language, welcoming the "timely completion" of the report.

Speaking for a coalition of the world's least developed countries, Ethiopia's representative said the US and its allies were seeking to undermine science that indicates more ambitious action is needed.

"It is unfathomable that while women, men and children all over the world suffer at the hands of climate change, a small handful of parties refused to welcome the science that confirms the devastation we are already experiencing in our countries," he said.

The final agreement also postponed key decisions on how to set up markets for trading international carbon credits after Brazil demanded changes that other nations argued would create accounting loopholes.

"No rules are better than bad rules, and that's what we went with," said E3G's Born.

What's next?

The next big milestone will come in September 2019. That's when UN Secretary-General António Guterres plans to convene a meeting rallying countries to step up their targets under the Paris Agreement. Advocates hope countries will announce more ambitious pledges at the meeting.

In a statement read by UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa, Guterres told delegates, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

Having agreed to the rule book, Guterres wrote, countries must turn their attention to redoubling their efforts: "From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what's in it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Negotiators created rules to help the world meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. But the UN climate chief still told the delegation, "Climate change is still running faster than us."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Drones are fun, drones are popular, but drones can also be dangerous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More Americans are having fun flying drones. But some hobbyists are flying drones too close to airports, buzzing tourists at national parks or spying on neighbors. Some officials are worried.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The immune system protects us against pathogens, which are microbes that cause infection. Vaccines "teach" the immune system to recognize and eliminate certain microbes. That way, your body is prepared if you're ever exposed.

Vaccinations are an important form of primary prevention. That means they can protect people from getting sick. Vaccinations have allowed us to control diseases that once threatened many lives, such as:

It's important that as many people as possible get vaccinated. Vaccinations don't just protect individuals. When enough people are vaccinated, it helps protect society.

Vaccines are very important for infants. But not all vaccines are given immediately after birth. Each vaccine is given on a timeline, and some require multiple doses.

Childhood vaccination schedule

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sets a recommended vaccine schedule for both children and adults, which is shown in the table below.

If you didn't receive some of your childhood vaccines, it's still possible to get them as an adult. However, depending on the vaccine, the dosing schedule may be different. You can ask your doctor what to expect.

Many vaccines are given in a group or series. It may seem like your child is getting a lot of vaccines all at once.

But according to the , there's no data that supports spacing out childhood vaccines. In fact, delaying a child's vaccinations can do more harm than good, leaving them vulnerable to pathogens that can cause serious illness or complications.

In addition to regular childhood vaccinations, adults should receive:

Your doctor may also suggest you receive additional vaccines or boosters based on your sexual orientation, health history, personal hobbies, and other factors. These possible vaccines include:

Bacterial meningococcal disease: This is a bacterial illness that causes inflammation of the layer of tissue surrounding your brain and spinal cord. While the meningococcal ACWY vaccine is recommended for all adolescents, the meningococcal B vaccine is also recommended for individuals with certain immune conditions.

Yellow fever: This is a serious and potentially deadly viral disease that's spread by mosquitoes. The CDC recommends anyone nine months and older be vaccinated against yellow fever if they plan to travel or live in areas of the world where yellow fever is present.

Typhoid fever: This is a potentially dangerous infectious disease. The CDC recommends adults and children be vaccinated against typhoid before international travel to places where typhoid fever is common.

Other vaccines you may need if you're planning to travel are outlined by the CDC in its Travel vaccine summary table.

A healthy immune system defends against invaders. The immune system is composed of several types of cells. These cells defend against and remove harmful pathogens. However, they first have to recognize that an invader is dangerous.

When the immune system encounters an antigen, it starts an immune response. Proteins, toxins, and nucleic acids from pathogens are all examples of potential antigens.

In response, the immune system antibodies, which are proteins that bind to specific antigens and neutralize them. It also leads to the expansion of antigen-specific immune cells called cytotoxic T cells, which find and destroy cells that have been infected with a pathogen.

Vaccination, also known as immunization, the body to recognize new diseases by stimulating the body to make antigens for pathogens, priming the immune system to remember them. This allows for a faster response to the actual disease in the future, should you be exposed.

Vaccines work by exposing you to a safe version of a disease. This can take the form of:

a protein or sugar from a pathogen

a dead or inactivated form of a pathogen

a modified toxin (toxoid) from a pathogen

a live but weakened form pathogen

Vaccines are usually given by injection. Also, some vaccines require a booster dose. Boosters help to reinforce your defenses against illness.

When it comes to vaccination, these benefits are important to consider:

Vaccines help prevent dangerous diseases that have killed and can sicken or kill many people.

Researchers thoroughly investigate each vaccine before presenting the data to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA can approve or deny the vaccine. The overwhelming majority of research shows that vaccines are safe.

Vaccines protect people around you, especially people who are not well enough to be vaccinated. This occurs through herd immunity. Widespread vaccinations make it less likely that a susceptible person will come into contact with someone who has a particular disease.

Some vaccines, such as the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and hepatitis B vaccine, can prevent infections that can cause cancer.

Preventing illness from vaccine-preventable diseases can save both time and money. For example, it can reduce the number of sick days you need to take from work or school and can help you avoid unnecessary medical bills.

Sometimes, vaccination can eliminate a disease entirely, such as smallpox. Additionally, polio has been almost been eradicated. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), wild poliovirus only impacted two countries in 2022 - Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Vaccines are considered to be safe. They're rigorously tested and go through many rounds of study, examination, and research before they're used with the general public. The provides information about how vaccine safety is ensured.

Mild side effects

It is possible to experience some side effects, but these are usually mild. Common side effects may include:

A 2021 study on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in a population found that of people experienced some pain at the injection site, 45.6% experienced headaches, 37.1% experienced muscle pain, and 33.9% experienced chills.

Most mild vaccine side effects go away on their own within a few days. Some side effects, such as pain and fever, can be alleviated through the use of over-the-counter medications like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin)

Allergy and anaphylaxis

it is possible to experience an allergic reaction to a vaccine, though the CDC this is uncommon. Common symptoms may include hives at the injection site and angioedema.

In even rare cases, you could experience a serious allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Research shows the overall anaphylaxis rate for all vaccines is only 1.31 per 1 million vaccine doses.

Myocarditis

Another example is myocarditis, which is an inflammation of the heart muscle and a rare side effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

However, a found that the risk of myocarditis is actually higher in people who contract COVID-19 than it is in those who get an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19.

Because most of the possible side effects are rare or relatively mild, the greatest risk for most individuals is choosing not to get a vaccine.

Not getting vaccinated can lead to infection, more severe illness, and transmission to others who may be vulnerable. It could also cause lasting complications or even be deadly.

You may have more questions about the safety of vaccines. This guide to vaccine safety can help.

Generally speaking, vaccines are highly effective. However, no vaccine is 100 percent effective. The effectiveness rate for vaccines differs from one vaccine to the next.

For example, flu vaccines effectively lower the risk of infection by in people who get the shot. That may sound low, but keep in mind the flu vaccine is designed to match the strain of the flu scientists expect to be most abundant in the coming flu season.

If they're wrong, the vaccine may be less effective. If they're right, the rate of protection may be higher.

The measles vaccine, on the other hand, is effective when used as recommended. Indeed, most childhood vaccines are effective if administered properly, according to the WHO.

In recent years, vaccine opponents have challenged their safety and effectiveness. However, their arguments have generally been flawed.

For instance, there's no good evidence that vaccination can cause Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of vaccine effectiveness. For example, vaccines prevent 3.5-5 million deaths annually, according to the WHO.

There are some other cases in which someone might not get vaccinated:

Weakened immune system: In this case, you should not get live vaccines such as the MMR vaccine or the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine. However, other types of vaccines would still be generally safe.

Previous allergic reaction: If you've had an allergic reaction to a vaccine before or you know you are allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine, you will need to avoid being immunized. Read more about which people should avoid certain vaccines and why.

Lack of awareness: According to the CDC, only of American adults got the annual flu shot during the flu season of 2020 to 2021. A 2017 survey study of adults in the United States found that only 62.3% of respondents knew that there was a recommendation for the flu vaccine.

Vaccine inequity: People from historically marginalized groups less access to quality healthcare, including to vaccinations, than people who are white.

New vaccines are being developed all of the time. The COVID-19 vaccines are a relatively recent example. These vaccines came about through a combination of building on previous research, an influx of private and public funding, and scientific collaboration. Learn more about the types of Covid vaccines available.

Additionally, a new vaccine has been developed for malaria. Malaria is a febrile illness that's caused by a parasite carried by mosquitoes. According to the , there were a total of 247 million malaria cases and 619,000 malaria deaths worldwide in 2021.

The vaccine, called RTS,S/AS01, contains recombinant proteins from the malaria parasite. Based on the results of a pilot program, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the use of this vaccine in children that live in areas with high malaria transmission.

Another intense area of research is in finding a vaccine for HIV. The high diversity of HIV and its high mutation rate are just two of the hurdles that have made this endeavor challenging.

Many trials of potential HIV vaccines have been performed or are in progress. Some of the involve the use of mRNA vaccine approaches similar to those used for the COVID-19 vaccines.

Most recently, in 2022, emergency authorization was granted for Jynneos, a vaccine against Mpox (formerly known as monkeypox).

Vaccines introduce your immune system to a pathogen so that you have protection from it, should you be exposed. Several types of vaccines are currently used to accomplish this:

Live virus vaccines: These use a weakened (attenuated) version of a pathogen.

Killed (inactivated) vaccines: These are made from a pathogen that's not living.

Toxoid vaccines: These come from a harmful toxin that's made by a pathogen. Toxoid vaccines don't make you immune to the germ, but instead, they make you immune to the harmful effects of the toxin of a germ.

Subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines: These take a structural component from a virus or bacterium that can train your immune system to attack this part of the germ.

mRNA vaccines: These use a piece of mRNA to teach your cells to produce a protein from a pathogen that your immune system can then generate a response to

Viral vector vaccines: These use a modified, non-replicating virus to show your cells how to make a protein from a pathogen that your immune system can then make a response to

In addition to the actual antigen, other ingredients are used to keep vaccines safe during production, storage, and transportation. These ingredients may also help the vaccine work more effectively once it's administered and represent a very small portion of the vaccine. They may include:

Suspending fluid: Sterile water, saline, or other fluids keep the vaccine safe during production, storage, and use.

Adjuvants or enhancers: These ingredients help make the vaccine more effective once it's injected. Examples include aluminum gels or salts.

Preservatives and stabilizers: Many vaccines are made months, even years before they're used. These ingredients help prevent the antigen from breaking down and becoming ineffective. Examples of a stabilizer are monosodium glutamate (MSG) and thimerosal.

Antibiotics: Very small amounts of a bacteria-fighting drug may be added to vaccines to prevent the growth of bacteria during vaccine production and storage.

Each of these ingredients is studied rigorously for safety and efficiency. See how these ingredients work together in the flu vaccine.

Thimerosal

One vaccine ingredient that has been surrounded by a bit of controversy is thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that is currently used in the adult multi-dose flu vaccine. The ingredient has not been put into any childhood vaccines since 2001.

However, its more widespread use in the past has contributed to the false belief in a link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

When you're pregnant, vaccines don't just protect you. They provide immunity to your growing baby. During these nine months, you and your baby need protection against serious diseases, and vaccines are a vital part of that.

The CDC recommends that people assigned female at birth planning to become pregnant receive an MMR vaccine before conceiving. These diseases, particularly rubella, can lead to serious issues, including miscarriage and birth defects.

Additionally, the CDC recommends people assigned female at birth also have certain vaccinations during their pregnancy. These include vaccines for whooping cough (Tdap), flu, and COVID-19.

After pregnancy, people assigned female at birth can receive vaccines, even while breastfeeding or chestfeeding. Post-pregnancy vaccinations also help protect your infant. If you're immune to a virus or bacterium, you're less likely to share it with your child.

If you aren't properly vaccinated, you and your infant could get sick. Read why that's a serious problem with the flu.

Most health insurance plans cover vaccinations at little or no out-of-pocket cost to you. If you do not have insurance or your insurance does not cover vaccines, you can look for low- and no-cost alternatives.

These include:

Community health organizations: Many organizations provide vaccine clinics for infants and children at a greatly reduced rate.

Vaccines for Children Program:This no-cost program provides recommended vaccines to children who do not have health insurance, are underinsured, are Medicaid-eligible, can't afford the shots, or are Native Americans or Alaska Natives.

State health departments: These community-based offices can provide basic health services, including vaccines, on a low cost basis.

The CDC provides a routinely-updated list of vaccine costs so that consumers may have an idea of the out-of-pocket cost of a vaccine. If you do not have insurance and don't qualify for any of these cost-reduction programs, this list may help you estimate your total out-of-pocket cost.

Additionally, it's important to know that COVID-19 vaccines are currently free to the public. That means that anyone within the United States can receive a COVID-19 vaccine free of charge. Use the vaccines.gov search tool to find a COVID-19 vaccine or booster near you.

Vaccines are highly effective and safe. They're used worldwide to prevent illness and death. These example statistics show how successful they've been - and how much more successful they could be with improved access.

Polio: Cases have decreased by more than 99 percent since a polio eradication campaign was initiated in 1988, according to the WHO. Today, polio is routinely found in only two countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan).

Prevention: Vaccines prevent 4 to 5 million deaths each year. Another 1.5 million could be prevented with expanded vaccine access. Between 2000 and 2018, the worldwide rate of measles deaths fell by 73%.

Rates: According to the CDC, 68.3 percent of American children receive the 7-vaccine series that's recommended by age two. However, most vaccination rates for individual vaccines are higher.

COVID-19: By now, more than 50 million Americans have been vaccinated for Covid-19 and received an updated booster dose.

Vaccines can reduce disease, and ending vaccination could be very dangerous. For example, In 2000, measles had been declared eradicated in the U.S.

But, between the months of January and October of 2019, a total of 22 measles outbreaks comprising 1,249 individual cases were reported in the United States - the highest number of cases since 1992. Public health officials found that of people that contracted measles during this period were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status.

Even today, around the world, many vaccine-preventable illnesses and deaths still occur. This is because vaccines are not available to everyone. Because vaccines can prevent millions of deaths each year, one of the missions of the WHO is to increase vaccine availability worldwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Vaccinations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's important that as many people as possible get vaccinated. When enough people are vaccinated, it helps protect society and creates herd immunity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Claire Le Guern
Last updated in November 2019.

Introduction

The world population is living, working, vacationing, increasingly conglomerating along the coasts, and standing on the front row of the greatest, most unprecedented, plastic waste tide ever faced.

Washed out on our coasts in obvious and clearly visible form, the plastic pollution spectacle blatantly unveiling on our beaches is only the prelude of the greater story that unfolded further away in the world's oceans, yet mostly originating from where we stand: the land.

For more than 50 years, global production and consumption of plastics have continued to rise. An estimated 299 million tons of plastics were produced in 2013, representing a 4 percent increase over 2012, and confirming and upward trend over the past years.(See: Worldwatch Institute - January 2015). In 2008, our global plastic consumption worldwide has been estimated at 260 million tons, and, according to a 2012 report by Global Industry Analysts, plastic consumption is to reach 297.5 million tons by the end of 2015.

Plastic is versatile, lightweight, flexible, moisture resistant, strong, and relatively inexpensive. Those are the attractive qualities that lead us, around the world, to such a voracious appetite and over-consumption of plastic goods. However, durable and very slow to degrade, plastic materials that are used in the production of so many products all, ultimately, become waste with staying power. Our tremendous attraction to plastic, coupled with an undeniable behavioral propensity of increasingly over-consuming, discarding, littering and thus polluting, has become a combination of lethal nature.

Although inhabited and remote, South Sentinel island is covered with plastic! Plastic pollution and marine debris, South Sentinel Island, Bay of Bengal. Photo source: © SAF - Coastal Care

A simple walk on any beach, anywhere, and the plastic waste spectacle is present. All over the world the statistics are ever growing, staggeringly. Tons of plastic debris (which by definition are waste that can vary in size from large containers, fishing nets to microscopic plastic pellets or even particles) is discarded every year, everywhere, polluting lands, rivers, coasts, beaches, and oceans.

Published in the journal Science in February 2015, a study conducted by a scientific working group at UC Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), quantified the input of plastic waste from land into the ocean. The results: every year, 8 million metric tons of plastic end up in our oceans. It's equivalent to five grocery bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world. In 2025, the annual input is estimated to be about twice greater, or 10 bags full of plastic per foot of coastline. So the cumulative input for 2025 would be nearly 20 times the 8 million metric tons estimate - 100 bags of plastic per foot of coastline in the world!

Lying halfway between Asia and North America, north of the Hawaiian archipelago, and surrounded by water for thousands of miles on all sides, the Midway Atoll is about as remote as a place can get. Although some delivery services in Europe will use paper packaging. However, Midways' isolation has not spared it from the great plastic tide either, receiving massive quantities of plastic debris, shot out from the North Pacific circular motion of currents (gyre). Midways' beaches, covered with large debris and millions of plastic particles in place of the sand, are suffocating, envenomed by the slow plastic poison continuously washing ashore.

Then, on shore, the spectacle becomes even more poignant, as thousands of bird corpses rest on these beaches, piles of colorful plastic remaining where there stomachs had been. In some cases, the skeleton had entirely biodegraded; yet the stomach-size plastic piles are still present, intact. Witnesses have watched in horror seabirds choosing plastic pieces, red, pink, brown and blue, because of their similarity to their own food. It is estimated that of the 1.5 million Laysan Albatrosses which inhabit Midway, all of them have plastic in their digestive system; for one third of the chicks, the plastic blockage is deadly, coining Midway Atoll as "albatross graveyards" by five media artists, led by photographer Chris Jordan, who recently filmed and photographed the catastrophic effects of the plastic pollution there.

Albatross, victim of plastic ingestion. Photo: Unknown.

From the whale, sea lions, and birds to the microscopic organisms called zooplankton, plastic has been, and is, greatly affecting marine life on shore and off shore. In a 2006 report, Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans, Greenpeace stated that at least 267 different animal species are known to have suffered from entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, plastic debris kills an estimated 100,000 marine mammals annually, as well as millions of birds and fishes.

The United Nations Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP), estimated that land-based sources account for up to 80 percent of the world's marine pollution, 60 to 95 percent of the waste being plastics debris.

However, most of the littered plastic waste worldwide ultimately ends up at sea. Swirled by currents, plastic litter accumulates over time at the center of major ocean vortices forming "garbage patches", i.e. larges masses of ever-accumulating floating debris fields across the seas. The most well known of these "garbage patches" is the Great North Pacific Garbage Patch, discovered and brought to media and public attention in 1997 by Captain Charles Moore. Yet some others large garbage patches are highly expected to be discovered elsewhere, as we'll see further.

The plastic waste tide we are faced with is not only obvious for us to clearly see washed up on shore or bobbing at sea. Most disconcertingly, the overwhelming amount and mass of marine plastic debris is beyond visual, made of microscopic range fragmented plastic debris that cannot be just scooped out of the ocean.

Slow, silent, omnipresent, ever increasing, more toxic than previously thought, the plastic pollution's reality bears sobering consequences, as recently unveiled by the report of Japanese chemist Katsuhiko Saido at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in August 2009 and the findings from the Project Kaisei and Scripps (Seaplex) scientific cruise-expeditions collecting seawater samples from the Great Garbage Patch. Both, the reports and expeditions uncovered new evidence of how vast and "surprisingly" (as it was termed at the ACS meeting) toxic the plastic presence in the marine environment is.

Extremely littered beach in northern Norway. Photo source: ©© Bo Eide

Environmentalists have long denounced plastic as a long-lasting pollutant that does not fully break down, in other terms, not biodegradable. In 2004, a study lead by Dr Richard Thompson at the University of Plymouth, UK, reported finding great amount of plastic particles on beaches and waters in Europe, the Americas, Australia, Africa and Antarctica. They reported that small plastic pellets called "mermaids tears", which are the result of industry and domestic plastic waste, have indeed spread across the world's seas. Some plastic pellets had fragmented to particles thinner than the diameter of a human hair. But while some cannot be seen, those pieces are still there and are still plastic. They are not absorbed into the natural system, they just float around within it, and ultimately are ingested by marine animals and zooplankton (Plankton that consists of tiny animals, such as rotifers, copepods, and krill, larger animals eggs and larvae's and of microorganisms once classified as animals, such as dinoflagellates and other protozoans.). This plastic micro-pollution, with its inherent toxicity and consequences on the food chain, had yet to be studied...

Dr Saido's study was the first one to look at what actually happens over the years to these tons of plastic waste floating in the world's oceans. The study presents an alarming fact: these tons of plastic waste reputed to be virtually indestructible, do decompose with surprising speed, at much lower temperature than previously thought possible, and release toxic substances into the seawater, namely bisphenol A (BPA) and PS oligomer. These chemicals are considered toxic and can be metabolized subsequent to ingestion, leading Dr Saido to state "...plastics in the ocean will certainly give rise to new sources of global contaminations that will persist long into the future".

This past August a different study, from a group of oceanography students from Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), UCSD, accompanied by the international organization Project Kaisei's team, embarked on two vessels, New Horizon and Kaisei, through the North Pacific Ocean to sample plastic debris and garbage. SIO director Tony Haymet described the trip as " ...a forage into the great plastic garbage patch in the north." To summarize the scientific data collected on the ship, Miriam Goldstein, chief scientist on New Horizon, stated: "We did find debris... coming up in our nets in over 100 consecutive net tows over a distance of 1,700 miles... It is pretty shocking." She said, "[There is] not a big island, not a garbage dump [that we] can really see easily." She described it more as a place where large debris floats by a ship only occasionally, but a lot of tiny pieces of plastic exist below the surface of the water. "Ocean pretty much looks like ocean," she said. "The plastic fragments are mostly less than a quarter inch long and are below the surface. It took at first a magnifying-glass to see the true extent of plastic damage in the North Pacific."

The overwhelmingly largest unquantifiable plastic mass is just made of confetti-like fragmented pieces of plastic.

In a press conference in September 2009, the director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Maziar Movassaghi, referring to Project Kaisei's findings, held a small glass bottle filled with seawater sampled at the Great North Garbage Patch. Inside was murky seawater with hundreds of fragmented plastics pieces: "That is what we have to stop".

All sea creatures, from the largest to the microscopic organisms, are, at one point or another, swallowing the seawater soup instilled with toxic chemicals from plastic decomposition. The world population "... (is) eating fish that have eaten other fish, which have eaten toxin-saturated plastics. In essence, humans are eating their own waste." (Dixit Renee Brown, WiredPress).

Photo: Manan Vastsyayana

The scientists from Project Kaisei and Scripps hope their data gives clues as to the density and extent of these debris, especially since the Great Pacific Garbage Patch might have company in the Southern Hemisphere, where scientists say the gyre is four times bigger." We're afraid at what we're going to find in the South Gyre, but we've got to go there," said Tony Haymet.

The "Silent World" is shedding mermaid tears. A plastic-poison has undeniably been instilled by us, prompting an unwilling and illegitimate confrontation of two titans: one synthetic (plastic), the other oceanic. The crisis is of massive proportion. An unprecedented plastic tide has occurred, pervasively affecting the world's oceans, beaches, coasts, seafloor, animals and ultimately, us.

I: The Great Plastic Tide: Magnitude, Scope, Extent

A full understanding of the magnitude and scope of this plastic pollution starts with clear definitions as to what and why it is happening. Thus, we will define the notions of marine debris, gyres, and oceanic garbage patches, or giant floating marine debris field, as first discovered in the North Pacific by Captain Charles Moore's, since referred to as The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GGP).

Marine Debris and Plastic

Krichim, Boat in plastic, April 25, 2009. Photo: Dimitar Dilkoff

Marine Debris

The term marine debris has been used for at least 25 years to refer to man-made materials that have been discarded or lost into the ocean. The earliest references come from the 1984 Workshop on the Impacts and Fate of Marine Debris (Shomura and Yoshida 1985). This workshop came out of a 1982 request from the Marine Mammal Commission to the National Marine Fisheries Service to examine the impacts of marine debris. At that time, the focus of research was primarily on derelict fishing gear. Keep in mind that this was prior to the implementation of both the high-seas driftnet ban and MARPOL Annex V.

Other terms used prior to 1984 include the following: man-made debris (Feder et all 1978), synthetic debris (Balazs 1979), plastic litter (Merrell 1980), floating plastic debris (Morris 1980), man-made objects (Shaughnessy 1980, Venrick et al 1973), and debris (Scordino and Fisher 1983).

It would appear that the term debris was being used in these articles by academics as something discarded: litter.

The term marine debris encompasses more than plastic, including metals (derelict vessels, dumped vehicles, beverage containers), glass (light bulbs, beverage containers, older fishing floats), and other materials (rubber, textiles, lumber). Plastic certainly makes up the majority of floating litter, but in some areas the debris on the ocean floor may contain sizeable amounts of those other denser types.

Scientists have similarly and more simply defined marine debris as, any manufactured or processed solid waste material that enters the ocean environment from any source (Coe & Rogers, 1997). Marine debris is definitely characterized as human-created waste that has deliberately or accidentally become afloat. They tend to accumulate at the centre of gyres and on coastlines, frequently washing aground where it is known as beach litter.

The US Congress passed a bill in 2006, The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, to create a program to address the marine debris pollution. One of the requirements in the bill was for NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the U.S. Coast Guard, to promulgate a definition of marine debris for the purposes of the Act. Thus, USCG and NOAA drafted and published a definition of marine debris in September 2009. The definition is this: "Any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes." Marine debris can come in many forms, from a plastic soda bottle to a derelict vessel. Types and components of marine debris include plastics, glass, metal, Styrofoam, rubber, derelict fishing gear, and derelict vessels.

UNEP has defined marine debris, or marine litter, as "any persistent, manufactured, processed, or solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment." This is an even more global and comprehensive definition, as it does include the marine and correlated coastal impact of the aforementioned litter.

Plastic pollution covering the shore, Morocco.Photo: © SAF - Coastal Care

As we mentioned supra, land-based sources of debris account for up to 80 percent of the world's marine pollution. Such debris is unquestionably one of the world's most pervasive pollution problems affecting our beaches, coasts, oceans, seafloors, inland waterways and lands. It affects the economies and inhabitants of coastal and waterside communities worldwide. The effect of coastal littering is obviously compounded by vectors, such as rivers and storm drains, discharging litter from inland urban areas. Obviously, ocean current patterns, climate and tides, and proximity to urban centers, industrial and recreational areas, shipping lanes, and commercial fishing grounds influence the types and amount of debris that is found in the open ocean or collected along beaches, coasts and waterways, above and below the water's edge.

The other 20 percent of this debris is from dumping activities on the water, including vessels (from small power and sailboats to large transport ships carrying people and goods), offshore drilling rigs and platforms, and fishing piers.

Over the past 60 years, organic materials, once the most common form of debris, have yielded to synthetic elements as the most abundant material in solid waste. Marine litter is now 60 to 80 percent plastic, reaching 95 percent in some areas, according to a report by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation (created by Charles Moore), published in October 2008 in Environmental Research.

Citarum River, flowing to the Sea, is the main source of houselhold water for Jakarta.(14million people). Photo source: photobucket

Around and around, worldwide, at distant seas, or merely bobbing among the waves before washing up ultimately on shore, a daily and ever too common plastic spectacle is unveiled: bottles, plastic bags, fishnets, clothing, lighters, tires, polystyrene, containers, plastics shoes, just a myriad of man-made items, all sharing a common origin: us.

Yearly data adds to the despondent reality of how extensively the plastic tide is increasingly affecting world's beaches and coasts. Launched in 1986 by the Ocean Conservancy, the Center for Marine Conservation's annual International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) has grown into the world's largest volunteer effort to collect data on the marine environment. Held the third Saturday of each September, the International Coastal Cleanup engages the public to remove trash and debris from the coasts, beaches, waterways, underwater, and on lands to identify the sources of debris. It is a compelling global snapshot of marine debris collected on one day at thousands of sites all over the world. The 2008, 23rd ICC reported that 104 countries and locations, from Bahrain to Bangladesh, and in 42 US States, from southern California to the rocky coast of Maine, had participated. The overwhelming percentage of debris collected was plastics and smoking paraphernalia. The 2008 report states that plastic litter has increased by 126 percent since ICC first survey in 1994. The top 3 items found in 2008 were cigarettes butts, plastic bags, and food wrappers/containers.

Durable and slow to degrade, plastic materials that are used in the production of so many products, from containers for beverage bottles, packing straps and tarps, and synthetic nylon materials used in fishing line, all become debris with staying power. Plastics debris accumulates because it does not biodegrade as many other substances do; although it will photo degrade on exposure to sunlight and does decompose, more rapidly than previously thought. (We will explain these processes as we study the nature and properties of plastic itself infra.).

In addition, most of these plastic waste items are highly buoyant, allowing them to travel in currents for thousands of miles, endangering marine ecosystems and wildlife along the way. Marine debris is a global transboundary pollution problem.

Icelandic shore. The marine area around Iceland is considered as one of the cleanest of the world. Photo Source: Clean up the Coastline, Veraldarvinir

The instillation of plastic in an oceanic world vests a terrible reality. Because of the properties of plastic as a synthetic material and because of the absence of boundary, vastness, currents and winds at seas, this resilient polluting material is being spread worldwide by an even more powerful vehicle, the seas. It appears then daunting, impossible, a priori, to control, efficiently clean-up, remedy effectively, even sufficiently study the plastic pollution. This unwilling confrontation of titans, one plastic the other oceanic, has become ineluctably a crisis of massive proportion.

Plastic

The paucity of concerted and definitive scientific data/research in this matter is staggering compared to the extent of the problem.
Only in 1997, with Captain Charles Moore's discovery, was the plastic waste pollution in the ocean widely brought to media light and finally began to receive more serious attention from the public and the scientific world, stepping the way to more exhaustive research about plastic and its consequences and effects when entering marine life.

Of the 260 million tons of plastic the world produces each year, about 10 percent ends up in the Ocean, according to a Greenpeace report (Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans, 2006). Seventy percent of the mass eventually sinks, damaging life on the seabed. The rest floats in open seas, often ending up in gyres, circular motion of currents, forming conglomerations of swirling plastic trash called garbage patches, or ultimately ending up washed ashore on someone's beach.

But the washed up or floating plastic pollution is a lot more than an eyesore or a choking/entanglement hazard for marine animals or birds. Once plastic debris enters the water, it becomes one of the most pervasive problems because of plastic's inherent properties: buoyancy, durability (slow photo degradation), propensity to absorb waterborne pollutants, its ability to get fragmented in microscopic pieces, and more importantly, its proven possibility to decompose, leaching toxic Bisphenol A (BPA) and other toxins in the seawater.

"Plastics are a contaminant that goes beyond the visual", says Bill Henry of the Long Marine Laboratory, UCSC.

Seal trapped in plastic pollution. Photo: ©© Tedxgp2

But before we develop further the realities and consequences of the plastic-covered beaches, seafloor and plastic-instilled seawater, it is necessary to present simple facts about plastic itself.

Facts About Plastic

What is plastic?

A simple definition could be: any of a group of synthetic or natural organic materials that may be shaped when soft and then hardened, including many types of resins, resinoids, polymers, cellulose derivatives, casein materials, and proteins: used in place of other materials, as glass, wood, and metals, in construction and decoration, for making many articles, as coatings, and, drawn into filaments, for weaving. They are often known by trademark names, as Bakelite, Vinylite, or Lucite.

In chemistry, plastics are large molecules, called polymers, composed of repeated segments, called monomers, with carbon backbones. A polymer is simply a very large molecule made up of many smaller units joined together, generally end to end, to create a long chain. The smallest building block of a polymer is called a monomer. Polymers are divided into two distinct groups: thermoplastics (moldable) and thermosets (not). The word "plastics" generally applies to the synthetic products of chemistry.

Alexander Parkes created the first man-made plastic and publicly demonstrated it at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London. The material, called parkesine, was an organic material derived from cellulose that, once heated, could be molded and retained its shape when cooled.
Many, but not all, plastic products have a number - the resin identification code - molded, formed or imprinted in or on the container, often on the bottom. This system of coding was developed in 1988 by the U.S.-based Society of the Plastics Industry to facilitate the recycling of post-consumer plastics. It is indeed, quite interesting to go through the fine lines.

1. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE) - Used in soft drink, juice, water, beer, mouthwash, peanut butter, salad dressing, detergent, and cleaner containers. Leaches antimony trioxide and (2ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).

2. DEHP is an endocrine disruptor that mimics the female hormone estrogen. It has been strongly linked to asthma and allergies in children. It may cause certain types of cancer and it has been linked to negative effects on the liver, kidney, spleen, bone formation, and body weight. In Europe, DEHP has been banned since 1999 from use in plastic toys for children under the age of three.

3. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) - Used in opaque milk, water, and juice containers, bleach, detergent and shampoo bottles, garbage bags, yogurt and margarine tubs, and cereal box liners. Considered a safer plastic. Research on risks associated with this type of plastic is ongoing.

4. Polyvinyl chloride (V or Vinyl or PVC) - Used in toys, clear food and non-food packaging (e.g., cling wrap), some squeeze bottles, shampoo bottles, cooking oil and peanut butter jars, detergent and window cleaner bottles, shower curtains, medical tubing, and numerous construction products (e.g., pipes, siding). PVC has been described as one of the most hazardous consumer products ever created. Leaches di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) or butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP), depending on which is used as the plasticizer or softener (usually DEHP). DEHP and BBzP are endocrine disruptors mimicking the female hormone estrogen; have been strongly linked to asthma and allergic symptoms in children; may cause certain types of cancer; and linked to negative effects on the liver, kidney, spleen, bone formation, and body weight. In Europe, DEHP, BBzP, and other dangerous phthalates have been banned from use in plastic toys for children under three since 1999. Not so elsewhere, including Canada and the United States.
Dioxins are unintentionally, but unavoidably, produced during the manufacture of materials containing chlorine, including PVC and other chlorinated plastic feedstocks. Dioxin is a known human carcinogen and the most potent synthetic carcinogen ever tested in laboratory animals. A characterization by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of cancer causing potential evaluated dioxin as over 10,000 times more potent than the next highest chemical (diethanol amine), half a million times more than arsenic, and a million or more times greater than all others.

5. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) - Used in grocery store, dry cleaning, bread and frozen food bags, most plastic wraps, and squeezable bottles (honey, mustard). Considered a safer plastic. Research on risks associated with this type of plastic is ongoing.

6. Polypropylene (PP) - Used in ketchup bottles, yogurt and margarine tubs, medicine and syrup bottles, straws, and Rubbermaid and other opaque plastic containers, including baby bottles. Considered a safer plastic. Research on risks associated with this type of plastic is ongoing.

7. Polystyrene (PS) - Used in Styrofoam containers, egg cartons, disposable cups and bowls, take-out food containers, plastic cutlery, and compact disc cases. Leaches styrene, an endocrine disruptor mimicking the female hormone estrogen, and thus has the potential to cause reproductive and developmental problems. Long-term exposure by workers has shown brain and nervous system effects and adverse effects on red blood cells, liver, kidneys, and stomach in animal studies. Also present in secondhand cigarette smoke, off gassing of building materials, car exhaust, and possibly drinking water. Styrene migrates significantly from polystyrene containers into the container's contents when oily foods are heated in such containers.

8. Other - This is a catchall category that includes anything that does not come within the other six categories. As such, one must be careful in interpreting this category because it includes polycarbonate - a dangerous plastic - but it also includes the new, safer, biodegradable bio-based plastics made from renewable resources such as corn and potato starch and sugar cane. Polycarbonate is used in many plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sippy cups, sports water bottles, three and five gallon large water storage containers, metal food can liners, some juice and ketchup containers, compact discs, cell phones, computers. Polycarbonate leaches Bisphenol A (some effects described above) and numerous studies have indicated a wide array of possible adverse effects from low-level exposure to Bisphenol A: chromosome damage in female ovaries, decreased sperm production in males, early onset of puberty, various behavioral changes, altered immune function, and sex reversal in frogs.

Rob Krebs of the American Plastics Council notes that people value plastics for exactly what creates the most problems at sea and on lands: their durability.

Plastic debris, of all sizes and shapes, is a transboundary pollution problem with a powerful vehicle, the ocean.

Vacha Dam near town of Krichim, April 25, 2009. Photo: Dimitar Dilkoff

Buoyancy

Plastics travel long distances. Their distribution in the oceans isn't uniform, yet they are omnipresent from the Polar Regions to the Equator. Scientists are still refining methods to detect and analyze the materials. A good example of plastic debris' buoyancy is as follows. In 1992, twenty containers full of rubber ducks were lost overboard from a ship traveling from China to Seattle. By 1994, some had been tracked to Alaska, while others reached Iceland in 2000. The ducks (with a distinctive logo on their base) have been sighted in the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Ebbesmeyer, 2003).

Photodegradation Vs. Biodegradation

Plastic is generally a durable material. Its durability has made the culprit of the problem since it is considered resistant to natural biodegradation processes, i.e. the microbes that break down other substances do not recognize plastic as food. Yet plastic can be fragmented with the effects of UV, being broken down by light in smaller and smaller debris over time.

Biodegradation, the breaking down of organic substances by natural means, happens all the time in nature. All plant-based, animal-based, or natural mineral-based substances will over time biodegrade. In its natural state raw crude oil will biodegrade, but man-made petrochemical compounds made from oil, such as plastic, will not. Why not? Because plastic is a combination of elements extracted from crude oil then re-mixed up by men in white coats. Because these combinations are man made they are unknown to nature. Consequently, it has been thought that there is no natural system to break them down. The enzymes and the micro organisms responsible for breaking down organic materials that occur naturally such as plants, dead animals, rocks and minerals, don't recognize them. This means that plastic products are said indestructible, in a biodegradable sense at least.

In sum, as time passes, we know that plastic will eventually photo-degrade, i.e. break down into smaller and smaller fragments by exposure to the sun. The photo-degradation process continues down to the molecular level, yet photo-degraded plastic remains a polymer. No matter how small the pieces, they are still and always will be plastic, i.e. they are not absorbed into or changed by natural processes. At sea, the plastic fragmentation process occurs as well, due to wave, sand action, and oxidation. Estimates for plastic degradation at sea has been ranged from 450 to 1,000 years.

Of particular concern are the floating small plastic fragments often referred in the media to as mermaids' tears, which are tiny nurdles of raw plastic resin that form the building material of every manufactured plastic product, or are granules of domestic waste that have fragmented over the years. Dr Richard Thompson of the University of Plymouth, UK has identified plastic particles thinner than the diameter of a human hair. But while they cannot be seen, those pieces are still there and are still plastic. Not absorbed into the natural system, they just float around within it. He estimates that there are 100,000 particles of plastic per sq km of seabed and 300,000 items of plastic per sq km of sea surface.

Either way, mermaid tears, or fragmented plastic debris, reaching microscopic size over time, remain everywhere and are almost impossible to clean up. They are light enough to float in the wind, landing in the earth's oceans. Mermaid's tears are often found in filter feeders like mussels, barnacle, lugworm and amphipods.

Thus, the photo degradation of plastic debris makes the matter worse. Plastic becomes microscopic, invisible, yet ever polluting waters, beaches, coasts, seafloor, being eaten by even tinier marine organisms, therefore entering the food chain insidiously and ineluctably.

Toxic Sponge

Corroborating reports and findings worldwide demonstrated that fragmented plastics debris' increase and massive presence on and off shores does constitute reason for raised worries and awareness.

Studies on small plastic pellet by Dr Richard Thompson and by Hideshige Takada, Yukie Mato professor of organic geochemistry at Tokyo University, have shown that plastic debris meeting other pollutants in the oceans absorbs harmful chemicals from the sea water they float in, acting like a pollution sponges.

These studies have been conducted on plastic nurdles not just because of their uniform size and shape, thus easier to study and compare by scientifics, but also because of their wide spread presence on the world's beaches.

In UK, mermaid tears are the second common plastic litter found on the beaches according to the Marine Conservation Society's 2007 data and a Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) report.

According to Charles Moore, these resin pellets account for around 8 percent of annual oil production and are the raw material for the 260 million tons of plastic consumed yearly worldwide. Lightweight and small, they escape in untold volumes during transport and manufacture and wash in the ocean.

Even though these researches have been conducted on nurdles, it is crucial to keep in mind, as Dr. Takada team confirmed, that other types of plastic debris (from fishing gear, shopping bags, to small fragments) displays the exact same propensity as the nurdles of raw plastic resin to absorb toxins.

Nurdles covered beach. Photo Source: Algalita Foundation

Plastic resin pellets are round, shiny and tiny, mostly less than 5mm in diameter. The very structure of the plastic material is oily and greasy (basically plastics are solid oil) therefore promoting the accumulation of hydrophobic contaminants (ones that tend to repel and not absorb water) from the surrounding seawater. Chemicals like PCB's and DDE are very hydrophobic. It was shown that plastic pellets suck up these dangerous persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and toxins with a concentration factor that's almost 1 million times greater compared to the overall concentration of the chemicals in seawater. In other words, waterborne hydrophobic pollutants do collect and magnify on the surface of plastic debris, thus making plastic far more deadly in the ocean than it would be on land.

These findings, published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, were based on samples gathered from 30 beaches in 17 countries. PCB (Polychlorinated biphenyls) pollutant concentrations on plastic pellet were highest on US coasts, followed by Western Europe and Japan. The highest concentrations of DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), the most toxic of all pesticides, were found on the US west coast and Vietnam.

Plastic marine debris, thought to be "indestructible", "lasting forever", has been shown to decompose faster than previously thought, under unexpected conditions (in the water and at sea temperature) and, most importantly, releasing toxic substances not found in the natural element: seawater.

Decompose

Since plastics belong to a chemical family of high polymers, they are essentially made up of a long chain of molecules containing repeated units of carbon atoms. Because of this inherent molecular stability (high molecular weight), plastics do not easily breakdown into simpler components.

North America, touched landscape. Photo Source: photobucket

Plastics do decompose, though not fully, over a very long period of time (in average 100 to 500 years). Commercially available plastics (polyolefins like polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) have been further made resistant to decomposition by means of additional stabilizers like antioxidants. Thus, unless the plastic is specially designed to decompose in the soil, such materials can last a very long time because the chemical bonds that hold the molecules together are often stronger than nature's power to take them apart. This means that soil microorganisms that can easily attack and decompose things like wood and other formerly living materials cannot break the various kinds of strong bonds that are common to most plastics. This depends upon the plastic (polymer) and the environment to which it is exposed.

The Marine Conservancy has published that the estimated decomposition rates of most plastic debris found on coasts are:

Foamed plastic cups: 50 years

Plastic beverage holder: 400 years

Disposable diapers: 450 year

Plastic bottle: 450

Fishing line: 600 years.

Until Dr. Saido's report, no studies had been conducted on plastic decomposition at low temperature in the marine environment, owing to the mistaken conception that plastic does practically not decompose in such condition. In the first study to look at what happens over the years to the billions of pounds of plastic waste drifting in the world's oceans, researchers, lead by Katsuhiko Saido, PhD, reported that plastic does "decompose with surprising speed (as little as a year) and release potentially toxic substances into the water."

These findings were reported on August 19, 2009, at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The scientists there termed the discovery "surprising."

Dr. Saido described a new method to simulate the breakdown of plastic products at low temperatures (30º Celsius, 86º F), such as those found in some oceans. David Barnes, marine ecologist from the British Antarctic Survey, expressed that the Japanese's team lab results cannot be applied uniformly across the ocean. However, even though the decomposition process would not occur in much cooler seawater as Barnes mentioned, the oceans are vast, currents are constant and permanent, nothing stays static and furthermore, it seems that garbage patches where plastics accumulate, are to be found in even greater dimension in the South Gyres, in the tropical and sub tropical zones with very warm waters. One of the researchers stated: "Even at 30 degrees Celsius, the plastic decomposes. In natural conditions, the tide comes in and sunlight heats the plastics [which increases decomposition]."

The type of plastic studied by Saido's team was polystyrene, a white foamed plastic, commonly known by the trademark Styrofoam.

The process involved modeling plastic decomposition at room temperature, removing heat from the plastic and then using a liquid to extract the BPA and PS Oligomer that are not found naturally, thus must have been created through the decomposition of the plastic. Once degraded, the plastic was shown to release three new compounds not found in nature: styrene monomer (SM), styrene dimer (SD) and styrene trimer (ST). While SM is already a known carcinogen, SD and ST are suspected to be as well.

Plastics are not metabolized subsequent to ingestion since they are polymers. On the other hand, low molecular compounds such as PS oligomer or BPA from plastic decomposition are toxic and can be metabolized!

Samples of sea sand and seawater collected from Europe, India, Japan and the Pacific Ocean were found to be contaminated, with up to 150 parts per million of some of these components of plastic decomposition.
"Plastics in daily use are generally assumed to be quite stable," said study lead researcher Katsuhiko Saido, Ph.D. "We found that plastic in the ocean actually decomposes as it is exposed to the rain and sun and other environmental conditions, giving rise to yet another source of global contamination that will continue into the future."

This latest study clearly shows new micro-pollution by compounds generated by plastic decomposition to be taking place out of sight in the ocean, leaching toxic chemicals such as Bisphenol A (BPA) and derivatives of polystyrene.

Even though present in seawater and sands, the pollutants are found in highest concentration in areas heavily littered with plastic debris, such as ocean vortices, which bring us to define more specifically the notion of gyres and "garbage patches".

Gyres and Garbage Patches

The plastic litter defacing the beaches of the World, alarming in Hawaiian archipelagos for instance, led, only two decades ago, a couple of private and public teams of environmentalists and scientists to start conducting research regarding marine debris in the oceans.

Between 1985 and 1988, an Alaska- based team of researchers found high concentrations of marine debris accumulating in regions governed by vortices like pattern of ocean currents, which lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States to publish a paper, in 1988, mentioning the high probability of the existence of "a large area highly concentrating plastic waste debris in the North Pacific". Flyovers of the area have been conducted as well, but not in a conclusive way. The trash was not that obvious from the sky. Indeed, despite its size and density, the GGP is not visible from satellite photography because of its consistency, as Kaisei project and Scripps teams confirmed last August. The largest mass of the plastic pollution contains fragmented pieces of plastic, permeating the ocean, almost invisible to the naked eye, suspended at, or beneath the surface of the ocean.

Plastic soup. Photo: Charles Moore

As evoked above, Charles Moore, a Californian sailor, surfer, volunteer environmentalist, and researcher, was crossing the Pacific Ocean while returning from a trans Pacific sailing race in 1997. He veered from the usual sea route taking a shortcut across the edge of the North Pacific Ocean. He came upon an area, the Doldrums, a windless part of the ocean that mariners usually avoid. The area is filled with tiny phytoplankton, but few big fish or mammals, thus fishermen and sailors rarely travel through it. There, Charles Moore saw an ocean he had never known. Every time he stepped out on deck, "there were shampoo caps and soap bottles and plastic bags and fishing floats as far as I could see. Here I was in the middle of the ocean, and there was nowhere I could go to avoid the plastic."

This area that Charles Moore came upon, the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, is a slowly moving, clockwise spiral or vortex of currents created by a high-pressure system of air currents. He reported his find to Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer, who named it the Eastern Garbage Patch.
Shocked by the extent of the plastic litter, Charles Moore went on alerting the world to the existence of this phenomenon.

Moore's discovery was finally corroborating previous scientists's, suspicions and extrapolations in regard to the existence of a high debris concentration in stable bodies of oceanic waters created over time by the rotating ring-like ocean currents system called gyres.

"We were out in the middle of the Pacific, where you would think the ocean would be pristine," recalls the Alguita's captain, Charles Moore. "...And instead, we get the Exxon Valdez of plastic-bag spills."

Captain Moore's giant floating debris field's discovery has since been subject to other expeditions, and another "patch" was found further west.

Media light was finally brought in force at that point. Human kind has walked on the moon since 1969...yet the ocean was still quite an unknown frontier in our collective conscience.

Gyres

The North Pacific gyre has given birth to two large masses of ever-accumulating plastic debris, known as the Western and Eastern Pacific Garbage Patches, collectively called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GGP). It is a gyre of marine litter in the Central North Pacific Ocean stretching for hundreds of miles across the ocean 1,000 miles from California coast on the East, to Japan and Hawaii on the West.

More specifically, a gyre is a large-scale circular feature made up of ocean currents that spiral around a central point, clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Gyres make up to 40 percent of the ocean. That is 25 percent of the globe. All of them are accumulators of debris, Moore says.

Worldwide, there are five major subtropical oceanic gyres: the North and South Pacific Subtropical Gyres, the North and South Atlantic Subtropical Gyres, and the Indian Ocean Subtropical Gyre. Since each behaves in the same vortex style, scientists are certain that massive conglomerates of marine litter like the North Pacific Garbage Patch exist in each of the world's oceans. That is soberingly self-explanatory: such huge garbage patch, or even larger ones, are more than likely to be discovered in the near future.

North Pacific Gyre. Illustration: NOAA

It is very difficult to measure the exact size of a gyre because it is a fluid system, but the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is roughly estimated to be approximately 7 to 9 million square miles, approximately three times the area of the continental United States (3 million square miles). Gyres do potentially aggregate debris on that large a scale. That is titanic.

Upon returning from their 22 days venture on the GGP, Project Kaisei and Scripps scientists' stated in a press conference held in September 2009: "(we) hope our data gives clues as to the density and extent of marine plastic debris, especially since the Great Pacific Garbage Patch may have company in the Southern Hemisphere, where scientists say the gyre is four times bigger. "We're afraid at what we're going to find in the South Gyre, but we've got to go there," said Tony Haymet, director of the Scripps Institution.

Garbage Patches

The Great Garbage patch is two separate accumulations connected by a 6,000-mile marine litter "corridor" known as the North Pacific Convergence Zone (STCZ). As will be explained infra, the convergence zone is in itself another serious accumulator of traveling plastic debris.

The Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch floats between Japan and Hawaii; the Western Patch floats between Hawaii and California. The rotational pattern created by the North Pacific Gyre draws in waste material from as far as Asia to the USA. As material is captured in the currents, wind-driven surface currents gradually move floating debris inward, trapping debris in higher concentrations in the calm center. Ocean currents carry debris from the East coast of Asia to the center, in less than a year, and from the Western US in about 5 years.

North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Illustration: Greenpeace

NOAA has tracked the Great Pacific Garbage Patch movements to some degree. It is not a stationary area, but one that moves and changes as much as a thousand miles north and south, and during warmer ocean periods, known as El Nino, it drifts even further south. The movements occur because the North Pacific Gyre is made up of four different currents: the North Pacific Current to the north; the California Current to the west; the North Equatorial Current to the south; and the Kuroshio Current to the east. This movement sometimes brings the Western Garbage Patch within 500 nautical miles of the California coast and causes extraordinary massive debris pile-ups on beaches, such as in the Hawaiian Islands and Japan.

Great Garbage patch, floating debris. Photo Source: flyaddicts

The name garbage patch has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items, such as bottles and other litter, akin to a literal blanket of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is simply not true. While larger litter items can be found in this area, along with other debris such as derelict fishing nets, the largest mass of the debris is small bits of floatable plastic.

We cannot emphasize enough that the GGP is now characterized by extremely high concentrations of suspended plastic debris for 90 percent, basically a soupy mix of plastic-filled seawater, made of tiny plastic debris that have been trapped by the currents and stretching for maybe thousands of miles, and that is the great problem.

Indeed, the researchers from Project Kaisei and the Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition (SEAPLEX), after their journey through the area, collecting samples the whole way, reported: "All we could see, not at first glance but with magnifying glass and magnifying worries, for miles and miles, was an incredibly huge mass of confetti-like tiny mermaid tears, plastic fragments, floating just beneath the surface. " As one of the scientist from the Project Kaisei witnessed: "There's no island, there's no eighth continent " Miriam Goldstein said, "It doesn't look like a garbage dump. It looks like beautiful ocean. But then when you put the nets in the water, you see all the little pieces." And while the expedition covered 1,700 miles, members of the Kaisei team say the patch could be much, much larger...

As for its depth and assumed density, the scientists reported that the GGP's waters were just clogged with plastic particles to a depth of 10 meters below the surface. The Scripps/ Kaisei survey mission of the gyre found that plastic debris was present in 100 consecutive samples taken at varying depths and net sizes.

In sum, they estimated the patch area ranged in size from 700,00 km2 to more than 15 million km2; the area may contain over 100 million tons of plastic debris.

Already in 1999, a study by Charles Moore, sampling waters from the GGP, found that the concentrations of plastic there reached one million particles per square mile, topping the concentration of zooplankton (plankton consisting of small animals and the immature stages of larger animals) by a factor of six. In 2008, the published new research from the Algalita foundation team of scientists estimated that the number had doubled.

After the return of the two vessels from Project Kasei and Scripps (Seaplex), Kaisei and New Horizon, the only certainty was that the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch remains uncertain. "It's not a hard and fast number." There has been extensive media coverage about the garbage patch over the past couple years; however, its reported size and mass have differed from news article to article. "It's a little bit like a whirlpool on the surface of a river or a lake. You'd be hard-pressed to tell me where the edge is. All you know is that it's stronger in the middle than it is in the outer reaches. But it's an area of many hundreds of miles, perhaps thousands, in which the ocean currents tend to bring it together," according to Robert Knox, deputy director for research at the Scripps Institution.

In the summer of 2010, Project Kaisei will launch its second expedition to the North Pacific Gyre where it will send multiple vessels to continue marine debris research and, in particular, to test an array of larger marine debris collection systems.

Marine debris collection at the GGP. Photo: Lindsey Hoshaw

The Eastern Garbage Patch has been studied the most so far, yet it is not and obviously cannot be the only vast oceanic "rubbish dump out there" says Charles Moore. The GGP is definitely not the only type of area where marine debris concentrates. Several other features within the ocean, including oceanic eddies and convergence zones, can lead to debris accumulation as well. A great and well known example is the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone (STCZ). It is located along the southern edge of an area known as the North Pacific Transition Zone. NOAA has focused on the STCZ because it is an area triggering massive debris accumulation in Hawaii. This area does not have distinct boundaries and varies in location and intensity of convergence throughout the year. This zone moves seasonally between 30º and 42º N latitude (approximately 800 miles), extending farther south (28ºN) during periods of El Niño (Donohue and Foley, 2007).

The August 2009 expedition was so dauntingly successful and the findings were so"shocking", that "...Scripps' officials are now working to raise funds for a trip to the South Pacific gyre, sometime within the next two years", Haymet announced at a press conference last August. "That project's scope is far greater. While the North Pacific patch appeared as large as the Continental US, its South Pacific cousin is suspected to be about four times as large", roughly the size of all of Western and part Eastern Europe.

II: The Path To Successful Resolution

This unprecedented plastic waste tide appears as vast as the ocean, as ungraspable as the unfathomable mass of microscopic plastic fragments present at sea, transported by winds and currents, yet, ultimately, the plastic tide can become as limited as our chosen relationship with plastics, which involves a dramatic behavioral change on our part. The path to successful resolution of the crisis clearly appears...as we are the problem and the solution.

The Victims and The Aggressors

The despondent effects and too numerous casualties of the great plastic tide are visible, but more alarmingly, beyond visual, which ought to prompt the perpetrators to choose no other path than the advocacy and culture of consistent and sustained behavioral changes.

Creek in Manilla, Philippines, March 01 2009. Photo: Francis R. Malasig

The Victims

Animals

From the whale, sea lions, and birds to the microscopic organisms called zooplankton, plastic has been, and is, greatly affecting marine life, i.e animals on shore and off shore, whether by ingestion or entanglement.

In a 2006 report, Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans, Greenpeace stated that at least 267 different species are known to have suffered from entanglement and ingestion of plastic debris. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said that plastic debris kills an estimated 100,000 marine mammals annually, millions of birds and fishes.

The largest pieces of marine plastic debris, miles long discarded fishing nets and lines mostly, take an obvious toll on animals. These derelicts nets, called ghost nets, snare and drown thousands of larger sea creatures per year, such as seals, sea lions, dolphins, sea turtles, sharks, dugons, crocodiles, seabirds, crabs, and other creatures. Acting as designed, these nets restrict movement causing starvation, laceration, infection, and, in animals that need to return to the surface to breathe, suffocation.

Entangled seal by derelict net, Hawaii. Photo Source: NOAA

On shores, researchers have also watched in horror as hungry turtles wolf down jellyfish-like plastic bags and seabirds mistake old lighters and toothbrushes for fish, choking when they try to regurgitate the plastic trash for their starving chicks.

Turtle eats plastic. Photo Source: Greenhouse Carbon Neutral Fdn

In the waters, plastic bags specifically, can be mistaken as food and consumed by a wide range of marine species, especially those that consume jellyfish or squid, which look similar when floating in the water column.

Albatross and others birds are choosing plastic pieces because of their similarity to their own food as well. Captain Moore and his Alguita team did see, above the GGP, albatrosses and tropicbirds circling above the line of trash. With little else to choose, they were obviously eating plastic. The birds seemed to be picking and choosing "the reds and pinks and browns. Anything that looks like shrimp," Moore says. Earlier in the trip, the Alguita had visited the French Frigate Shoals, off Hawaii, home to endangered monk seals and seabird rookeries. In the birds' gullets researchers found red plastic particles. Greenpeace reported that a staggering 80 percent of seabird populations observed worldwide have ingested plastics. Research into the stomach contents of dead Fulmars from the Netherlands, between 1982 and 2001, found that 96 percent of the birds had plastic fragments in their stomachs with an average of 23 plastic pieces per bird (Van Franeker and Meijboom, 2003).

Midway atoll, bird corpse. Photo: © Chris Jordan

When plastic ingestion occurs, it blocks the digestive tract, gets lodged in animals windpipes cutting airflow causing suffocation, or fills the stomach, resulting in malnutrition, starvation and potentially death. Indeed, it is found that debris often accumulates in the animals' gut and give a false sense of fullness, causing the animal to stop eating and slowly starve to death.

Midway atoll, bird corpse. Photo: © Chris Jordan

In April 2002 a dead Minke whale washed up on the Normandy coast in France. An investigation found that its stomach contained 800 kg of plastic bags (GECC, Groupe d'Etude des Cétacés du Cotentin, 2002).

In February 2004, a Cuviers Beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) was found washed ashore on the west coast of the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Cuviers beaked whales are rarely seen in coastal waters, as they are predominantly a deep-water species. The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust took various skin and blubber samples and removed the stomach for further study by the Scottish Agricultural College. On initial removal it was found that the entrance to the stomach was completely blocked with a cylinder of tightly packed shredded black plastic bin liner bags and fishing twine. It is believed that this made it difficult for the animal to forage and feed effectively.

50 to 80 percent of sea turtles found dead are known to have ingested plastic marine debris.

The smaller the pieces of plastic get, the more dangerous they are to marine organisms. Fragmented plastic, specifically nurdles and small size mermaid tears, are found in the stomach of smaller sea creatures as well: fish, birds, marine mammal, reptile, jelly fish, select plastic pellets as they resemble fish eggs.

Whether the chemicals contained in the plastics are then desorbed to digestive fluids and transferred to tissues in quantities significant enough to harm the animals is subject to ongoing, yet still incomplete, research. However, as more and more studies on the matter are undergone, unpleasant findings are definitly uncovered.

What is proven, as we've seen supra, is that plastic does soak up pollutants, acting as toxic-sponge for man-made toxins present in the ocean, thus accumulating pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals at concentrations up to 1 million times higher than in ocean water (Moore et al, 2001). PCBs can lead to reproductive disorders, death, an increased risk of disease, and an alteration of hormone levels (Ryan et al., 1988;Lee et al, 2001). They have been linked to the masculinisation of female polar bears and spontaneous abortions and declines in seal populations. In 1988, Ryan et al obtained evidence that PCBs in the tissues of Great Shearwaters were derived from ingested plastic particles (from Derraik, 2002). Furthermore, DDT, a pesticide that was banned in the US in the 1960's and labeled by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1987 as a "probable human carcinogen," has been found on these plastics fragments. The most recent review of all evidence concludes that exposure to DDT before puberty increases the risk of breast cancer.

Food Chain

In a September press conference, Doug Woodring from Project Kaisei, said that assessments of the impact of plastic debris on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and mesopelagic (midwater) fishes are undergoing. The samples collected from the seawater will be subject to more scientific studies for the toxicity of the plastics and how this is really affecting our food chain (in ways that are only just becoming known... and not good ways).

Plastic found in Rainbow Runner fish guts. Photo Source: Algalita Marine Research Foundation

Katsuhiko Saido, Ph.D said, "We found that plastic in the ocean actually decomposes (...) giving rise to yet another source of global contamination that will continue into the future." Furthermore, as Saido added: "We are concerned that plastic pollution is also caused by these invisible materials and that it will harm marine life." While the potential toxicity of these tiny plastic constituents is still understudied for much of marine life, plastics are abundant in many forms. Plastics, including polystyrene, are common in the wads of accumulated, undigested matter that young black-footed albatrosses cough up before they fledge.

Whether plastics present a unanimously accepted and proven toxic challenge to marine life, and subsequently to humans, is one of the biggest challenges facing scientists right now.

Health

Saido's latest science report last summer about the decomposition of polystyrene plastics vests a simple reality: Bisphenol A (BPA) has been shown and proven to interfere with the reproductive systems of animals. PS oligomer and BPA from plastic decomposition are toxic and can be metabolized, while styrene monomer is a suspected carcinogen. Low levels of BPA and PS oligomer have been proven to cause hormone disruption in animals.

More scientific reports are being published on the effects of Bisphenol A on animal and human health, and the news is not good.

In 2009, a professional, international medical organization in the field of endocrinology and metabolism, The Endocrine Society, reported data from new research on animals experimentally treated with BPA. Studies presented at the group's annual meeting show BPA can affect the hearts of women, can permanently damage the DNA of mice, and appear to be entering the human body from a variety of unknown sources. A 2005 study, which analyzed BPA serum concentrations, concluded that "exposure to BPA is associated with recurrent miscarriage".

The first major study of health effects on humans associated with bisphenol A exposure was published in September 2008 by Iain Lang and colleagues in the Journal of American Association. The cross-sectional study of almost 1,500 people assessed exposure to bisphenol A by looking at levels of the chemical in urine. The authors found that higher bisphenol A levels were significantly associated with heart diseases, diabetes, and abnormally high levels of certain liver enzymes.

A 2008 scientific review concluded that "prenatal exposure to (...) low doses of BPA alters breast development and increases breast cancer risk". A 2009 scientific review, funded by the "Breast Cancer Fund", has recommended "a federal ban on the manufacture, distribution and sale of consumer products containing bisphenol A".

A 2009 study on urinary concentrations concluded that prenatal BPA exposure might be associated with externalizing behaviors in two-year old children, especially among female children.

A 2009 study on Chinese workers in BPA factories found that workers were four times more likely to report erectile dysfunction, reduced sexual desire, and overall dissatisfaction with their sex life than workers in factories that made products ranging from textiles to machinery, in which there was no heightened BPA exposure. They were also more likely to report reduced sexual function within one year of beginning employment at the factory, and the higher the exposure, the more likely they were to have sexual difficulties.

A 2009 review of available studies has concluded, "Prenatal BPA exposure acts to exert persistent effects on body weight and adiposity."

A 2009 scientific review about environmental chemicals and thyroid function concluded, "Available evidence suggests that governing agencies need to regulate the use of thyroid-disrupting chemicals, particularly as such uses relate exposures of pregnant women, neonates and small children to the agents". A 2009 review summarized BPA adverse effects on thyroid hormone action.

Kuta beach, Bali. Photo Source: Claude Graves

All sea creatures, from the largest to the microscopic organisms are, at one point or another, swallowing the seawater soup instilled with toxic chemicals from plastic decomposition. Much of ocean's life is in the microscopic size range and zooplankton is the base of the food chain. As environmentalists remind the world's population, "...We are eating fish that have eaten other fish, which have eaten toxin-saturated plastics. In essence, humans are eating their own waste..." (Dixit Renee Brown, WiredPress)."

Beaches, Coast, Sea Floor, Shorelines

Blatantly visible is the plastic spill washing up on the shores and beaches. Just a walk on any beach, anywhere in the world, and plastic debris are found in one form or another. All over the world the statistics are ever growing, just staggeringly. Last year, an estimated 150,000 tons of marine plastic debris washed up onto the shores of Japan and 300 tons a day on India's shores.

Layson Island, Hawaiian islands. Photo Source: NOAA

The Hawaiian Archipelago, extending from the southernmost island of Hawaii 1,500 miles northwest to Kure Atoll, is among the longest and most remote island chains in the world. The 19 islands of the archipelago, including Midway atolls, receive massive quantities of plastic debris, shot out from the Pacific gyres. Some of the plastic litter is decades old. Some beaches are buried under 5 to 10 feet of plastic trash, while other beaches are riddled with "plastic sand," millions of grain-like pieces of plastic that are practically impossible to clean up. One of the reasons marine debris accumulates in these islands is the movement of debris within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone (STCZ), as we have explained supra.

Two studies on several islands off Jakarta Bay and islands further to the northwest in the Java Sea, reported that debris pollution on shorelines had substantially increased between 1985 and 1995 (Uneputty and Evans 1997b, Willoughby et al. 1997). Both studies noted that results implicated Jakarta as a major source of the debris. On 23 of the islands, it was reported that the total litter at the strandline ranged from not detectable to 29.1 items/m (Willoughby et al. 1997). Plastic bags, polystyrene blocks, and discarded footwear accounted for 80 percent of the items found.

Researchers Barnes and Milner (2005) list five studies which have shown increases in accumulation rates of debris on mid to high latitude coasts of the southern hemisphere.

Surveys of shorelines around the world, reported by Greenpeace, have recorded the quantity of marine debris either as the number of items per km of shoreline or the number of items per square meter of shoreline. The highest values reported were for Indonesia (up to 29.1 items per m) and Sicily (up to 231 items per m).

Seabed Pollution. Photo Source: Bouteilles à la mer org.

It's been reported by Greenpeace that an estimated 70 percent of the mass of fragmented plastic present in the open oceans of the world does sink to the deep-sea bed. A limited body of literature exists, though, concerning these small to microscopic particles (micro debris) mirroring the little research addressed to marine litter on the sea floor.

Ecosystem Changes

Another effect of the plastic tide that goes beyond visual is its potentiality to change entire ecosystems.

"Plastic is not just an aesthetic problem," says marine biologist David Barnes of the British Antarctic Survey. "It can actually change entire ecosystems." He has documented that plastic debris which floats on the oceans, acts as rafts for small sea creatures to grow and travel on. This represents a potential threat for the marine environment should an alien species become established. It is postulated that the slow speed at which plastic debris crosses oceans makes it an ideal vehicle for this. The organisms have plenty of time to adapt to different water and climatic conditions.

Coral Reefs

Derelict fishing gear can be destructive to coral reefs. Corals are in fact animals, even though they may exhibit some of the characteristics of plants and are often mistaken for rocks. In scientific classification, corals fall under the phylum Cnidaria and the class Anthozoa. They are relatives of jellyfish and anemones. (NOAA)

Nets and lines become snagged on coral and subsequent wave action causes coral heads to break off at points where the debris was attached. Once freed, debris can again snag on more coral and the whole process is repeated. This cycle continues until the debris is removed or becomes weighted down with enough broken coral to sink (NOAA 2005a). Eventually, derelict fishing gear may become incorporated into the reef structure.

Plastic on Coral. Photo Source: EPA

Plastic bags can kill coral by covering and suffocating them, or by blocking sunlight needed by the coral to survive. During 2001, so many plastic bags were regularly seen in the Gulf of Aqaba, off the coast of Jordan, that the Board of Aqaba Special Economic Zone issued a law banning the production, distribution, and trade of plastic bags within the areas under their jurisdiction.

Economics

Marine litter cause serious economic losses to various sectors and authorities. Among the most seriously affected are coastal communities (increased expenditures for beach cleaning, public health and waste disposal), tourism (loss of income, bad publicity), shipping (costs associated with fouled propellers, damaged engines, litter removal and waste management in harbors), fishing (reduced and lost catch, damaged nets and other fishing gear, fouled propellers, contamination), fish farming and coastal agriculture.

Haina, Dominican Republic. Photo Source: Eduardo Munoz

In a 2007 Fortune Magazine article about India, it was written that the costs of river pollution to the economy are enormous. Waterborne diseases are India's leading cause of childhood mortality. Shreekant Gupta, a professor at the Delhi School of Economics who specializes in the environment, estimates that lost productivity from death and disease resulting from river pollution and other environmental damage is equivalent to about 4 percent of gross domestic product.

The bill for cleaning the beaches in Bohuslän, on the west coast of Sweden, in just one year was reportedly at least 10 million SEK or $1,550,200. In Britain, Shetland fishermen reported that 92 per cent of them had recurring problems with debris in nets, with each boat losing between $10,500 and $53,300 per year as a result of marine litter. The cost to the local industry could be as high as $4,300,000. The municipality of Ventanillas in Peru has calculated that it would have to invest around $400,000 a year in order to clean its coastline, while its annual budget for cleaning all public areas is only half that amount. (Unep)

Our Oceans and coastlines are under unprecedented plastics waste attack. It's coming back at us in many ways. It's a dire problem that only received serious scientific and public attention in the early 90's, as we know, but all along the perpetrators have simply and clearly been identified.

The Aggressors

The obvious and simple answer is: us...

Behind each and every piece of littered plastic debris there is a human face. At a critical decision point, someone, somewhere, mishandled it, either thoughtlessly or deliberately. Cigarette filters and cigar tips, fishing line, rope and gear, baby diapers and nappies, six-pack rings, beverage bottles and cans, disposable syringes, tires, the litany of plastic litter is as varied as the products available in the global marketplace, but it all shares a common origin.

Sources

260 million tons per year is our estimated plastic consumption, 6 789 billion, is the estimated world population (United States Census Bureau, as of October 2009). Our voracious appetite for plastics, coupled with a culture of discarding products that we have chosen for their inherent longevity, is a combination of lethal nature for our environment.

Plastic Sea. Photo Source: Coastal wiki

The ultimate symbol of our throwaway lifestyle is the plastic bag: 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags is the number consumed annually, which is about a million a minute. The production of plastic bags creates enough solid waste per year to fill the Empire State Building two and a half times. The petroleum used to make only 14 plastic bags could drive a car 1 mile.

Plastic bags are commonly found in waterways, on beaches, and in other unofficial dumping sites across China, for instance. Litter caused by the notorious bags has been referred to as "white pollution."

In the United States, however, measures to ban or curtail the use of plastic bags have met with official resistance. With its powerful lobby, the plastics industry argues that jobs will disappear. The industry employs some two million workers. Americans alone throw out at least 100 billion bags a year, the equivalent of throwing away 12 million gallons of oil, which seems an intolerable waste. Until the U.S. follows the lead of San Francisco, China, Ireland, Uganda, South Africa, Russia, and Hong Kong and targets the reduction of plastic bags using legislature, we each need to make a conscious choice and refuse to use it.

The core of the plastic waste instillation in world's oceans is primarily rooted in poor practices of solid waste management, a lack of infrastructure, various human activities, an inadequate understanding on the part of the public of the potential consequences of their actions, the lack of adequate legal and enforcement systems nationally and internationally, and a lack of financial resources affected to the cause. Mainly a consensus needs to happen, as a culture of behavioral changes needs to be promoted.

The four main land-sources of plastics debris have been identified as:

Shoreline and recreational activities related litter

This includes: bags, balloons, beverages bottles, cans, caps, lids, shoes, cups, plates, forks, knives, spoons, food wrappers/containers, six-pack holders, pull tabs, shotgun shells/wadding, straws, stirrers, toys, medical hygiene (condom, syringe), drug and smoking paraphernalia (The filters are made of cellulose acetate, a synthetic polymer (fiber) that can last for many years in the environment), and 55 gallons drums. All this land-based debris blows, washes, or is discharged into the water from land areas after people engaged in beach-going activities have discarded it.

Branscombe, United Kingdom, Photo: Matt Cardy

About 80 percent of all tourist flock to coastal areas. Massive influxes of tourists, often to a relatively small area, have a huge impact, adding to the pollution of the local population, putting local infrastructure and habitats under enormous pressure. For example, 85 percent of the 1.8 million people who visit Australia's Great Barrier Reef are concentrated in two small areas, Cairns and the Whitsunday Islands, which together have a human population of just 130,000 or so, WWF reported.

Shoreline activities account for 58 percent of the marine litter in the Baltic Sea region and almost half in Japan and the Republic of Korea. In Jordan, recreational activities contribute up to 67 percent of the total discharge of marine litter. This is a particularly big problem in the East Asian Seas region - home to 1.8 billion people, 60 percent of whom live in coastal areas - with its fast growing shipping and industrial development. Other emerging hotspots include the oil-boom coasts of the Caspian and the littoral states of Iran and Azerbaijan.

In South Asia, the growing ship-breaking industry has become a major source of marine debris. In Gujarat, India - one of the largest and busiest ship-breaking yards in the world - operations are carried out on a 10-kilometer stretch on the beaches of Alang, generating peeled-off paint chips and other types of non-degradable solid waste making its way into the sea.

Sewage (waste waters containing plastic type products, rivers, waterways)

Under normal, dry weather conditions, most wastes are screened out of sewage in countries that do apply strict sewage treatment. However, materials can bypass treatment systems and enter waterways when rain levels exceed sewage treatment facilities' handling capacity. During these times, sewage overflows occur.

The Yamuna River, which flows 855 miles from the Himalayas into the Ganges, is one of India's most, but not only, polluted river. The Centre for Science and Environment says that nearly 80 percent of the river's pollution is the result of sewage. Combined with industrial runoff, that comes to more than three billion liters of waste per day, a quantity well beyond the river's assimilative capacity. Many Indian rivers are so polluted they exceed permissible levels for safe bathing.

Yamuna River in New Delhi. Photo: Manan Vastsyayana

It has been reported that the lack of adequate solid waste management facilities results in hazardous wastes entering the waters of the Western Indian Ocean, South Asian Seas, and southern Black Sea, among others.

Fishing related debris

Dumping, wastes from ships, boats platforms (20%). Derraik (2002) stated that ships are estimated to dump 6.5 million tons of plastic a year. An estimated fourth fifths of the oceanic debris is litter blown seaward from landfills and urban runoff washed down storm drains. (Unep). Clean up on land where 80 percent of the plastic debris originates is thus the primarily obvious answer.

Manual Clean Up

The simplest, yet highly effective, action is the manual clean up of the beaches, coasts, rivers, lands and estuaries.

National and international manual clean-up operations of shorelines and sea floor are in existence.

For instance, the past 20 years, the Japan Environmental Action Network (JEAN) has been organizing a yearly beach cleanup and survey.

On an international level, the International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) was installed. The International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) engages the public to remove trash and debris from the world's beaches and waterways, to identify the sources of debris, and to change the behaviors that cause pollution. The origins of the ICC began in 1985 with research conducted by The Ocean Conservancy (then known as the Center for Marine Conservation - CMC) on plastics in the marine environment. Contracted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, the CMC produced the report Plastics in the Ocean: More Than a Litter Problem, which was the first study to identify plastics as a significant marine debris hazard. The data collected and analyzed from the annual ICC Cleanup is used locally, nationally and internationally to influence policy decisions, spawn campaigns for recycling programs, support public education programs, launch adopt-a-beach programs, and even storm water system overhaul and legislative reform.

The Clean Up the World program is run in conjunction with UNEP. It engages more than 40 million people from 120 different countries in clean up operations.

Hawaiin shores. Photo Source: epa.gov

As part of its Rise Above Plastics campaign, Surfrider foundation is hosting frequent beach clean-ups; it is an example of an encouraging trend towards collective awareness and action to solve the problem at its source.

Worldwide private groups and associations are more and more aware that clean-up does need to happen, one day at a time, one person at a time.

Cleaning Up Of The Oceans Debris In The Open Seas

NOAA has also been contacted regarding cleanup of the debris directly in the garbage patch and other areas of the North Pacific; however, cleanup is likely to be more difficult than it may seem. "If only things were that simple. We could just go out there and scoop up an island," says Holly Bamford, director of NOAA's marine debris program. "If it was one big mass, it would make our jobs a whole lot easier." It's like a galaxy of garbage, populated by billions of smaller trash islands that may be hidden underwater or spread out over many miles.

Furthermore, in some areas where marine debris concentrates so does marine life, such as in the STCZ. This makes simple scooping up of the material risky, more harm than good may be caused. Straining ocean waters for plastics would capture the plankton that is the base of the marine food web and responsible for 50 percent of the photosynthesis on Earth. (NOAA).

As Captain Charles Moore once said: the cleaning up effort of the oceanic garbage patches "would bankrupt any country and kill wildlife in the nets as it went."

However, confident in the future and investigating new horizons, Doug Woodring, from Project Kaisei, will be producing a documentary for National Geographic testing catch techniques for the plastic waste ("we know not all can be caught, but some can for sure"), at least for the largest debris that we know do decompose over time and actually more rapidly than previously thought.

Marine debris accumulation, on seafloor. Photo Source: NOAA

The clean up operation is the most immediate, highly effective, and simplest, action/plan that we, the problem, can undertake right now to contribute to the solution. It is a great starting point for a fundamental cultural change that need to occur, which is part of a major consensus.

The Consensus

Undeniably a culture of behavioural changes, now in its infancy, need to further blossom and be implemented/prompted at all levels: individual, associative, governmental, legislative, industrial, technological, educational, philosophical, national, and international.

It simply starts with individual choices. That is the enormous task, yet the enormous power as well because it resides within each and every one of us. Indeed, thanks to an increased awareness of the plastic pollution spread, local, national, individual, and associative actions have taken place worldwide to stop the plastic hemorrhage at the source.

Education, Legislation, and Awareness

Education

The starting point of all greater good does remain education and information.

More and more awareness and preventive programs are promoted.

For instance, in 2004, the Australian government launched a campaign called Keep the Sea Plastic Free, in which it attempted to educate the public to dispose of plastic waste properly.

Surfrider foundation is aiming to raise awareness of plastic marine debris and reduce the proliferation of single-use plastic bags and water bottles, as well as the number one littered item worldwide, cigarette butts. The Rise Above Plastics program also seeks to promote a more sustainable lifestyle and educate people about the prevalence of plastic marine debris on our beaches and oceans and how deadly it can be to marine life.

South East Asia - Philippines, 2008. Photo: Tamara Thoreson Pierce

The Indonesian government, for instance "(is) seriously concerned about improving its waste management and informing the public," quoted the Jakarta Post, 2008. The head of the Maritime and Coastal Resources Studies, Tridoyo Kusumastanto, said that both individual and industrial dumpers should learn from scavengers who take solid waste out instead of dumping it into rivers, canals and the sea. Tridoyo estimated that some 40 tons of waste have been dumped into rivers and other waterways daily in surrounding areas and thus polluting the Java Sea. A campaign against river and sea pollution has been called, and people are urged to change their culture of throwing garbage into waterways and other common places.

Being educated on the situation and aware of the consequences ultimately leads us toward better choices in term of consumption and waste management of plastic at an individual level. It can be as simple as refraining from discarding plastic after first use...plastic inherently chosen for its durability.

Mumbai Impressions... when the water retreats... Plastic Pollution. Captions and Photo source: ©© Don Domingo

As H. Takada mentioned: "We can't avoid using plastic, but we use too much. "In fact, he's added a fourth "R" to the ecologist's classic mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle: refuse. The current bring-your-own-bag movement at retail stores and supermarkets is a good start in terms of refusing, he notes.

Instantaneous, prompt eradication of plastics in its current form, rate of production, and consumption is not realistically feasible, yet constant pressure is impacting industry and politicians to "think green," to have environmentally responsible approach, production, prevention plans, and legislations.

Extend Producer Responsibility

Relentless associative campaigns have proven that change can happen, such as the recent victory from the Uk's Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) campaign against mermaid tears.

"SAS launched a campaign to rid British coastlines of mermaid tears, and will continue to build up until factory practice changes." On June 5th 2009, the release of the British Plastic Federation's (BPF) Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) guidance manual was a victory on the preventive field. OCS is aimed at improving British plastic factories efficient use of plastic pellets, commonly referred to as mermaid's tears. SAS initially highlighted the problem of mermaid's tears on UK beaches to the BPF in 2007, delivering a bottle of 10,000 mermaid's tears, collected from one Cornish beach, to a BPF biopolymer seminar. SAS also released a covert film documenting mermaid's tears in the storm drains of plastic factories in the southwest, highlighting the route from factory to beach. SAS and the BPF have worked together on the OCS solution. SAS has already signed up Contico, one of the southwest's largest plastic factories, to pilot some of the improvements within OCS.

Shoichiro Kobayashi, from The Japan Plastics Industry Federation, says that its members have taken measures to reduce spillage of plastics nurdles.

"Awareness of the problem is high," says Kobayashi, and has been since JEAN and other NPOs started publicizing the issue about 15 years ago. The federation has about 1,000 members. Together with the 2,200-member All Japan Plastic Products Industrial Foundation, the two groups represent the largest plastic producing companies in Japan. Kobayashi says his organization encourages members and associated transport companies to avoid spillage and to cover all drainage pipe openings with wire mesh. That's helped reduce the problem at larger companies, but there are more than 20,000 producers of plastic goods in Japan.

On September 22nd 2009 in California, a press conference was held by DTC director Maziar Movassaghi and Project Kaisei founder Mary Crowley, along with representatives from the State of California and various nonprofit groups. They pushed for Extended Producer Responsibility, the philosophy that companies that create products must take responsibility for the full life cycle of those products, products that are "benign by design." Mary Crowley added, "Let's reduce the source of this pollution by not only choosing healthy, plastic-free products ourselves, but also urging our legislators to pass Extended Producer Responsibility legislation. In fact, such a bill is currently on the table in the state of California. AB283, the California Product Stewardship Act, is an important step in this process."

Changzhi, Shanxi Province. Photo: Stringer Shanghai

Local legislations, with clear frames and enforcements measures, are increasingly being presented and passed in concert with international programs and legislations, which need ratification by as many countries as possible as the pollution is without frontiers.

Legislation And International Concerted Programs

Internationally

In 1972, the London Convention, a United Nations agreement to control ocean dumping, was entered into. It was followed by the most well known piece of International legislation, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL). Annex V of MARPOL was introduced in 1988 with the intention of banning the dumping of most garbage and all plastic materials from ships at sea. A total of 122 countries have ratified the treaty. There is some evidence that the implementation of MARPOL has helped to reduce the marine debris problem.

UK Beach. Photo Source: SWNS

In 1972 and 1974, conventions were held in Oslo and Paris, respectively, which resulted in the passing of the OSPAR Convention, an international treaty controlling marine pollution in the north-east Atlantic Ocean around Europe. A similar Barcelona Convention exists to protect the Mediterranean Sea. The Water Framework Directive of 2000 is a European Union directive committing EU member states to make their inland and coastal waters free from human influence. In the United Kingdom, the proposed Marine Bill is designed to "ensure clean healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas, by putting in place better systems for delivering sustainable development of marine and coastal environment".

Under the umbrella of UNEP, numerous cooperative efforts have been held to reach protocols and conventions. For instance, a Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management was approved in January 2008, involving 21 countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the European Union. Within the framework of Land Based Sources Protocol for pollution reduction from land-based sources, Mediterranean countries and parties to the Barcelona Convention have agreed this year on an initial set of actions covering the reduction of municipal pollution and the elimination of a number of Persistent Organic Pollutants.

The Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) continues to encourage member states in meeting the Caribbean Challenge target of protecting 20 percent of marine and coastal habitats by 2020. The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Project and development of a Regional Fund for Wastewater Management will support regional collaboration to reduce the vulnerability of sensitive coastal and marine ecosystems by improving national and regional governance structures and developing new and innovative mechanisms for financing new pollution reduction activities.

Even though the greatest problem with international legislation is its actual enforcement, the efforts toward concerted actions can only be promoted.

Nationally

A strict Chinese limit on ultra-thin plastic bags significantly reduced bag-related pollution nationwide during the past year. "Our country consumes a huge amount of plastic shopping bags each year" a spokesperson for China's State Council said, when announcing the ban last May. "While plastic shopping bags provide convenience to consumers, this has caused a serious waste of energy and resources and environmental pollution because of excessive usage, inadequate recycling and other reasons." In January 2008, The State Council, China's parliament, passed legislation to prohibit shops and supermarkets from providing free plastic bags that are less than 0.025 millimeters thick. The State Administration of Industry and Commerce also threatened to fine shopkeepers and vendors as much as 10,000 Yuan ($1,465) if they were caught distributing free bags. The country avoided the use of 40 billion bags, according to government estimates. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) estimated that the limit in bag production saved China 1.6 million tons of petroleum.

The first country to ban plastic bags was Bangladesh, which did so in 2002. Following a particularly damaging typhoon, authorities discovered that millions of bags were clogging the country's system of flood drains, contributing to the destruction.

In the same year, Ireland took another approach and instituted a steep tax on plastics. According to the country's Ministry of Environment, use fell by 90 percent as a result and the tax money that was generated funded a greatly expanded recycling program throughout the country. In 2003, the government of Taiwan put in place a system by which bags were no longer made available in markets without charge. Carryout restaurants were even required to charge for plastic utensils.

Larger economies have joined the cause and passed legislations on a national level. In 2005, French legislators imposed a ban on all non-biodegradable plastic bags, which will go into effect in 2010. Italy will also ban them that year.

During its 2008 session, the New York State Legislature passed legislation requiring the reduction, reuse, and recycling of checkout bags. The previous year, the city of San Francisco banned plastic bags altogether, at least the flimsy ones of yore. National Public Radio reported a few months later that the ban had been a boom for local plastics manufacturers, who have been introducing heavy-duty, recyclable, and even compostable bags into the marketplace.

An impactful vehicle for information and awareness is indubitably found in the media and creative ventures.

A good example of such ventures is the team of two South African surfers, Ryan and Bryson Robertson, and one Canadian, Hugh Patterson, who created the OceanGybe mission. Their plan is to circumnavigate the globe in a small 40ft sailboat and surf remote reef breaks on far flung islands while interacting with the local cultures. They intend to spread awareness of the vast tracts of plastic and trash afloat on the world's oceans that inevitably ends up on some unsuspecting shore.

Fishing debris on beach. Photo Source: unknown

More publicized and funded is the environmentalist and Adventure Ecology founder David de Rothschild's expedition: the Plastiki mission.

The Plastiki, a one-of-a-kind 60-foot catamaran, was created out of 10,000 reclaimed plastic soda bottles, self-reinforced PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and recycled materials. The vessel's name is a nod to famed explorer Thor Heyerdahl, who led a 1947 voyage on the Kon-Tiki to test theories of Polynesian settlement by South Americans. The Plastiki is about to make its momentous voyage across the Pacific Ocean, a 10,000-mile expedition from San Francisco to Sydney, Australia by the end of this year, to inspire people to rethink current uses and waste of plastic as a resource and bring attention to the GGP.

De Rothschild explained that Plastiki's construction has already jump-started research into a future "smart plastics" industry before ever leaving port. For instance, studies are underway on glues that could someday replace common marine epoxies and plastics that could replace non-recyclable fiberglass.
"The Plastiki voyage will be a great adventure, but I think more exciting is the ability to create a conversation on the issue of plastics."

Philosophy

Adventures of philosophical nature have been taking place as well.

Indeed, French thinkers such as Michel Serre or Luc Ferry, The new ecological order, have developed a train of thought aiming towards a legal recognition, therefore legal protection of Nature. This type of philosophy has been called, deep ecology. The principle is quite simple: democracies have installed their legislative framework, their "social contract," omitting Nature as a protagonist/subject of law. Therefore, to protect Nature, i.e. our environment, should we confer legal right to it, thus making nature a legal subject/person?

Obviously, all subject of law have rights, but they also have obligations. If we can easily forsee what the right and protection would be for this legal subject, what would be its obligations?

This leads many thinkers towards a notion of "droit ou devoir d'ingerence ecologique" (right or duty of intervention/assistance), trying to mirror the situation on the humanitarian field. The notions of "self defense" and "non assistance a personne en danger" have also been explored as possible legal frames to better enforcement of laws and conventions aimed to protect the environment, and curb ocean plastic pollution for that matter.

Sustainable And Future Technologies - Opportunities and Innovations

Biodegradable plastics

Biodegradable plastics have been considered as a future, sustainable option to curb our voracious demand and consumption of plastic material as known in its current form. According to the Biodegradable Plastics Society (2005), when such plastics are composted they break down to carbon dioxide and water.

Controversy does exist though, because it is possible that biodegradable plastics do not break down fully, especially under environmental conditions which are not ideal for composting, and leave non-degradable constituents, some of which may be equally, if not more, hazardous. Also, there is a danger that biodegradable plastics will be seen as "litter friendly" materials, conveying the wrong message to the public and potentially leading to less responsible and more wasteful practices.

A change in behavioral propensities to over-consume plastics, discard and thus pollute, need to be promoted to the fullest.

Ongoing discoveries and solutions to the traditional plastic waste problem

Scientists have been searching for solutions to the traditional plastic waste problem.

In 2008 and 2009, two high school students who discovered plastic-consuming microorganisms, might have found groundbreaking solutions.

African coast, plastic pollution and marine debris. Photo: Candace Feit

The first was Daniel Burd (2008). The second was Tseng I-Ching(l May 2009), a high school student in Taiwan.

Daniel's simple and clever process was to immerse ground plastic in a yeast solution that encourages microbial growth, then isolating the most productive organisms. After several weeks of tweaking and optimizing temperatures, Burd was achieved a 43 percent degradation of plastic in six weeks, an almost inconceivable accomplishment. It appeared as an environmentalist's dream: a non-chemical, i.e. fully organic, low cost and nontoxic method for degrading plastic.

There have been several successful bacteria based solutions developed at the Dept. of Biotechnology in Tottori, Japan, as well as at the Dept. of Microbiology at the National University of Ireland, but both apply only to styrene compounds.

Similarly, a 2004 study at the University of Wisconsin isolated a fungus capable of biodegrading phenol-formaldehyde polymers previously thought to be non-biodegradable.

Green chemistry and "begnign by design" concept

A growing interest amongst chemists, and ultimately industries, is Green chemistry- policy, also called "benign by design".

According to scientists at the University of Southern Mississippi (USM), a new type of environmentally friendly plastic that degrades in seawater may be developed. Robson F. Storey, Ph.D., a professor of Polymer Science and Engineering at USM, said, "We're moving toward making plastics more sustainable, especially those that are used at sea." Their study is funded by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), which is supporting a number of ongoing research projects aimed at reducing the environmental impact of marine waste. The new plastics are made of polyurethane that has been modified by the incorporation of PLGA [poly (lactide-co-glycolide)], a known degradable polymer used in surgical sutures and controlled drug-delivery applications. When exposed to seawater, the plastics degrade via hydrolysis into nontoxic products, according to the scientists. The plastics are not quite ready for commercialization. "More studies are needed to optimize the plastics for various environmental conditions they might encounter, including changes in temperature, humidity and seawater composition", Storey says.

A new kind of material, called oxo-biodegradable plastic, does not just fragment, but is consumed by microorganisms after the additive has reduced the molecular weight. It is thus biodegradable. This process continues until the material has biodegraded to nothing more than CO2, water, humus, and trace elements. There is little or no additional cost, as it can be made with the same machinery and workforce as conventional plastic. The time taken to degrade can be programmed to a few months or a few years and, until the plastic degrades, it has the same strength and other characteristics as conventional plastic. Oxo-biodegradable plastic will be engineered to degrade in a short time leaving no harmful residues.

Recycling and Zero Waste concept

A promising way toward a future of better plastic waste management is recycling the material. The recycling industry might eventually be a path leading to considerable opportunities and solutions.

The BIR (Bureau of International Recycling), whose headquarters is in Belgium, is a trade federation representing the world's recycling industry. About 800 companies and national federations from over 70 countries are affiliated with the BIR. Together they provide their expertise to other industrial sectors and political groups in order to promote recycling. It is estimated that the recycling industry employs more than 1.5 million people, annually processes over 500 million tons of commodities, and has a turnover exceeding $160 billion.

However, this industry is faced with many challenges, as the recycling material itself is very diverse in a chemical sense and can release, when processed, extremely dangerous chemicals. For instance, a recycling factory in China was recently exposed to tragic consequences due to the recycling of very hazardous plastic materials. It was reported that a team of workers in China's Zhejiang province collapsed after handling two metric tons of plastic scrap on September 13, 2009. At least 21 have since been hospitalized and three of them have died. According to the initial investigative conclusions, the victims were in contact with highly toxic chemical, dinitrophenol, which was found on the two tons of plastic scrap. Workers at the recycling factory were unaware of the hazard of the material and had no protection during the unloading. This particular tragedy is only the tip of the iceberg. China's plastics recycling industry is poorly regulated, with scandals such as biohazard plastic waste being melted and reprocessed into consumer goods.

Recycling is definitely a potentially great path to solving the plastic waste problem but definitely not the most unchallenging one.

Along the same lines, a responsible waste strategy, namely the concept of Zero Waste, has been widespread. Such a strategy encompasses waste reduction, reuse and recycling as well as producer responsibility and ecodesign. According to a Greenpeace report, strategies to achieve Zero Waste are adopted throughout the world, in industrialized countries and in less developed countries.

Ultimately, this would mean reduction of the use of plastics. "Our understanding of disposal and reuse (of plastic, is what) is to blame." as many environmentalist such as de Rothschild, said.

This zero waste philosophy encourages the redesign of resource's life cycles, so that all products are reused. Any trash sent to landfills is minimal. The process recommended is one similar to the way that resources are reused in nature. Zero waste can represent an economical alternative to waste systems, where new resources are continually required to replenish wasted raw materials.

DTSC's Environmental Chemistry Laboratory is currently analyzing some of the plastic marine debris collected at the Great Garbage Patch by Project Kaisei scientists, and explores the potential of converting the plastic collected into new material.

Indeed, Doug Woodring from Project Kaisei stated last September that they intend to use some of the newest plastic technologies to detoxify and turn the plastic waste caught in the oceans either into fuel or another useable material. Thus, Project Kaisei hopes to assign value to that plastic collected, particularly the overwhelming majority that is never recycled. It becomes obvious that technologies that convert plastic to fuel, clothing, or simply more profitable plastic could give people a good reason to pick up all that plastic and make a profit from it. Numerous industries, such as fashion, are already increasingly focusing on new green materials as a base for their offered products, encouraging a way of life and cultural change toward better choices and awareness of the environment.

"It's controllable," DougWoodring said. "We have to let people know that enough is enough, but it's not just a negative story about toxicity and wrecking our oceans. There is a huge amount of opportunity for innovation."

Conclusion

"The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed."
-Commandant Jacques-Yves Cousteau.

The abysmal depth and extent of the task before us ought to be never as inexhaustible and boundless as our dedication and compelling strive to greater changes.

Plastic pollution. Photograph: © SAF - Coastal Care
Note: This article was first written and published in November 2009, and last updated in September 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Claire Le Guern Last updated in November 2019. The world population is living, working, vacationing, increasingly conglomerating along the coasts, and standing on the front row of the greatest, most unprecedented, plastic waste tide ever faced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out how to become a U.S. citizen through naturalization. See how to prove U.S. citizenship, get dual citizenship, or renounce or lose your citizenship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society.

From chronically flooded Midwestern towns to fire-charred California suburbs, from Bangladesh's sodden delta to low island nations facing rising seas, a long-underplayed strategy for cutting risks related to human-driven climate change is coming to the fore-adaptation.

Through 30 years of efforts to limit global warming, the dominant goal was cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases, most importantly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Efforts to adapt communities or agriculture to warming and the related rise in seas and other impacts were often seen as a copout.

The spotty nature of adaptation efforts so far can be seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael -where one reinforced, raised home famously survived, nearly alone, along Mexico Beach, Florida, after the strongest Panhandle hurricane in at least 155 years. In the Camp Fire that devastated Paradise, California, and killed 85 people, a sprinkling of houses built and maintained to withstand embers survived, but-again-were the rare exception.

But signs are emerging that a significant shift is under way, dividing the climate challenge into two related, but distinct, priorities: working to curb greenhouse gases to limit odds of worst-case outcomes later this century while boosting resilience to current and anticipated climatic and coastal hazards with just as much fervor. There's action from the top down, and-perhaps more significant in the long run-from the bottom up.

The most prominent signs of the rising profile of adaptation came with the launch in October of a Global Commission on Adaptation and a December commitment of $200 billion in climate finance over five years by the World Bank and partners.

The commission is led by former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, philanthropist and entrepreneur Bill Gates, and the World Bank's chief executive officer, Kristalina Georgieva. This was a particularly significant move for Gates, whose philanthropic work and personal investments on climate had so far focused on breakthrough clean-energy technologies. ( Learn more about this effort.)

The commission's first task is to produce a report on innovative approaches to spreading and financing climate adaptation, to be presented at a United Nations climate summit in late September. There are plenty of questions. For example, some climate adaptations can worsen climate change-with energy-thirsty air conditioning the simplest example. But other adaptations, like restoring stripped land to forest or planting coastal mangroves can have the triple benefit of buffering floods, absorbing carbon dioxide, and providing habitat for wildlife. And sometimes climate benefits can come from restoring wildlife, as is happening with beaver introduction in southern Utah and central Washington State, for example, under a Climate Adaption Fund managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society.

In its December announcement of climate financing for developing countries, the World Bank stressed that, for the first time, its $100-billion portion would be evenly split between investments cutting emissions and boosting resilience.

"We must fight the causes, but also adapt to the consequences that are often most dramatic for the world's poorest people," said Georgieva, the bank's leader.

Adaptation - "a kind of laziness"?

It wasn't always this way.

As early as the 1990s, and then in climate-treaty talks in 2002, there was talk of the need to adapt to a changing climate even as nations struggled to curb emissions. But what some called the "A" word was anathema to many global warming campaigners, who saw efforts to adapt to climate extremes as capitulation and a distraction from the need to curb emissions from fossil-fueled smokestacks and tailpipes, cattle pens, cement factories, and felled forests.

The shift toward accepting parallel efforts to cut our rising influence on the climate system and its threatening influence on us has been building for several years.

In his 2013 book The Future, former Vice President Al Gore acknowledged that he made a mistake in 1992 by disparaging adaptation as a " kind of laziness" in Earth in the Balance, his bestselling manifesto for climate action. His revised view? Those resisting action on emissions were wrong to tout adaptation alone, Gore wrote. But he said he was "wrong in not immediately grasping the moral imperative of pursuing both policies simultaneously, in spite of the difficulty that poses."

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change was the first pact in a quarter century of climate diplomacy to include a global goal on adaptation aimed at "strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change." Since then a steady string of fiery, stormy, costly climatic calamities has vividly illustrated the price of unaddressed vulnerability, and fresh reports from the United Nations and independent researchers have meanwhile charted the unrelenting rise in greenhouse emissions.

The day after Thanksgiving, the Trump administration released the latest section of a periodic National Climate Assessment pointing to a role for global warming in everything from heat waves to gully-washing downpours. Media coverage tended to focus on the contrast between dismissive statements on climate change by President Donald Trump and the report's compendium of evidence of enormous risk. Largely missed was the assessment's argument for building adaptable, resilient communities, institutions and businesses. At the same time, the report warned that the enormous momentum in the climate system guarantees no quick benefit from even a heroic global cut in emissions-leaving many vulnerable people at risk.

Benefits of resilience

There is also a more practical rational for boosting resilience. It almost always amounts to a bargain.

As the Fourth National Assessment put it, "Proactive adaptation initiatives-including changes to policies, business operations, capital investments, and other steps-yield benefits in excess of their costs in the near term, as well as over the long term."

In an interview last weekend, Katharine Hayhoe, a lead author of this and the previous U.S. climate assessment, released in 2014, cited another welcome aspect of the adaptation side of building a sustainable relationship with climate: It's a pursuit that she has found resonates in sectors of society across the political spectrum.

"I speak frequently to water planners, farmers, ranchers, and they all get it," said Hayhoe, who directs the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and is well known for speaking of her Christian beliefs and climate science concerns.

The argument for a big boost in adaptation work, along with cutting emissions, she said, comes from robust science showing many places are already deeply vulnerable and an unabated rise in greenhouse gas levels tips the odds steadily toward further trouble.

"If I could pick a single way to explain climate change to everyone it would be threat multiplier," she said. "It's not either-or."

Hayhoe said an encouraging sign of community efforts on adaptation emerged during the drafting of the latest report. In the 2014 assessment, the team had planned to include case studies from around the country, but had a tough time finding good ones. This time there was no trouble peppering the report with examples of what's possible. You can explore some at this link.

From preventing wildfire to living with it

In the combustible West, groups offering assistance to towns seeking to coexist with wildfire rather than try in vain to suppress it say they've seen a substantial burst of interest.

As of 2017, only two California communities at risk from wildfire, Mammoth Lakes and San Diego, had signed on for help from a Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire program -run by two nonprofit groups and supported by a foundation and the U.S. Forest Service. The small organization helps municipal planners and fire agencies shape long-term development strategies in ways that allow fire to do what it has long done in such ecosystems-a sharp shift in culture from the days of aggressive fire suppression.

In 2018, 14 of the 27 communities that applied for help were from California, said Molly Mowery, the president of Wildfire Planning International, one of the partners in the effort. Two new projects are getting under way, she said, both in communities that experienced bad fires- Redding and Mariposa County.

Given the rising interest in resilience and adaptation among both homeowners and community officials in fire country, many working to boost sustainability lament that relevant budgets, at both the federal and state level, are grossly insufficient to enable more work. In late November, a Washington Post story touched on two examples, reporting that the University of California's extension program, which provides outreach to homeowners on wildfire risk reduction, has seen its budget cut almost in half.

The budget crunch isn't limited to regions facing fire risk. The Federal Emergency Management Agency this year is offering nearly $400 million in grants for efforts to cut flood risk and general "pre-disaster mitigation" by towns, states, and tribal or territorial governments. But that's a fraction of what's needed, by a host of accounts. (The deadline for applications is January 31.)

A Match.com for flooded towns and scientists

One low-budget path toward resilience evolved as community activists in flooded towns connected with volunteer scientists.

Several years ago, Helen Lekavich, a hair stylist and massage therapist in Midlothian, Illinois, on the southern fringe of Chicago, got fed up with chronic rain-fed flooding, recruited neighbors into a group called the "Floodlothian Five" and successfully pushed for a comprehensive " RainReady" flood-reduction plan, designed with the help of a Chicago nonprofit, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (see video).

There is now a national organization, Flood Forum USA, working to help other communities build resilience in the same way. On the website, concerned citizens can sign up to be a " flood reporter," join an existing community's forum (here's a map), or build a network around their own flooding issue.

One critical need is scientific advice, and that's where another partner, the American Geophysical Union, comes in. Five years ago, the professional society for earth scientists launched what it calls Thriving Earth Exchange, essentially a Match.com for communities facing resilience issues and volunteers from its membership with skills in relevant fields, like hydrology or remote sensing.

In Bangladesh, long the symbol of human vulnerability to flooding, engineers and officials have been testing ways to build up lands by better managing the huge flows of sediment and water washing from the Himalaya through the country's great deltas. There are challenges but there is also clearly a chance to sustain livelihoods and limit dangers even as sea level rises, according to a recent report in Science magazine.

Elsewhere, as the BBC recently reported, farmers have expanded a traditional method of growing a range of vegetable crops on long floating mats of woven hyacinth plants that remain productive even when heavy monsoons make conventional farming impossible.

Enduring islands, managed retreat

Some small island nations are in deep trouble, literally, even at a mid-range projection for sea-level rise by 2100. But others are exploring ways to keep up with the rising waters as much as possible.

In the Marshall Islands, long among the small island states most threatened by rising seas, leaders have called for rich countries to ramp up emissions reductions but are also exploring home-grown solutions like dredging sand from a lagoon to help build up the capital atoll, Majuro.

In some situations, there's evidence that low reef-fringed islands can persist and even enlarge-even in parts of the world where local sea levels are rising faster than the global average. Paul Kench, a geographer at the University of Auckland, has published research over 15 years showing this effect in both the Indian Ocean and Pacific. In his latest paper, Kench used satellite imagery to track 40 years of change in all 101 islands comprising the Pacific atoll nation Tuvalu. Three quarters of the islands gained area, showing that islands are dynamic features.

( Read more about island resiliency.)

The bigger challenge, of course, is that people crave coasts and, in this case, development would need to be focused in the interior to maintain the dynamics necessary for persistence. The lure of the shore is the same whether on scattered oceanic islands or Long Island, New York, where local communities' quest for economic growth has slowed efforts to build and plan with a long-term view, in which rising seas are the norm, with only the rate uncertain.

The term of art for reconfiguring communities to leave room for coastal dynamics, storms, and projected sea-level rise is "managed retreat."

Adapt Virginia, a hub for resilient planning in that state, has compiled a detailed set of case studies in managed retreat, from New York City's Staten Island to Ventura, California. It's costly, often involving government buyouts of coastal properties. But the calculation remains that in most cases the long-term benefits, which include restored ecosystems, outweigh the up-front cost.

More reasons for urgency

In the meantime, a string of studies, along with an October special report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have increasingly linked human-driven global warming to the intensity and size of heat waves, potent downpours, coral reef die-offs, some aspects of hurricanes in some regions, coastal flooding, the spread of tropical diseases, and other hazards.

Another source of concern is accumulating research revealing patterns of extraordinarily extreme weather through the last several thousand years in places now heavily built and populated. Scientists dissecting cores of layered ancient marsh and lake mud and other clues to past climate conditions have revealed spasms of frequent, powerful hurricanes even in past cooler periods around Puerto Rico, extreme hill-scouring rainstorms in Vermont, and century-long megadroughts in Ghana -meaning calamities that might be perceived as "unprecedented" are in fact simply rare, and thus unmeasured, threats.

All of this reinforces the reality that vulnerability reduction is essential with or without global warming, said Richard J.T. Klein, a longtime analyst of climate risk and policy options at the Stockholm Environment Institute.

"There is momentum developing and it's long overdue," said Klein, who signed on this fall to direct science and innovation at the Global Center on Adaptation, which is managing the adaptation commission's work along with the World Resource Institute. "This is about a current risk that's bad enough to take action to start with, and that is already increasing."

Andrew Revkin is the Strategic Adviser for Environmental and Science Journalism at the National Geographic Society and has written on global warming for 30 years. He is the author of three books about climate, most recently Weather: An Illustrated History, from Cloud Atlases to Climate Change. He covered the environment for years at the New York Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Once derided, ways of adapting to climate change are gaining steam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article was created in partnership with the National Geographic Society. From chronically flooded Midwestern towns to fire-charred California suburbs, from Bangladesh's sodden delta to low island nations facing rising seas, a long-underplayed strategy for cutting risks related to human-driven climate change is coming to the fore-adaptation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Parental refusal of vaccines is a growing a concern for the increased occurrence of vaccine preventable diseases in children. A number of studies have looked into the reasons that parents refuse, delay, or are hesitant to vaccinate their child(ren). These reasons vary widely between parents, but they can be encompassed in 4 overarching categories. The 4 categories are religious reasons, personal beliefs or philosophical reasons, safety concerns, and a desire for more information from healthcare providers. Parental concerns about vaccines in each category lead to a wide spectrum of decisions varying from parents completely refusing all vaccinations to only delaying vaccinations so that they are more spread out. A large subset of parents admits to having concerns and questions about childhood vaccinations. For this reason, it can be helpful for pharmacists and other healthcare providers to understand the cited reasons for hesitancy so they are better prepared to educate their patients' families. Education is a key player in equipping parents with the necessary information so that they can make responsible immunization decisions for their children.

INDEX TERMS: parental refusal, personal beliefs, religious, safety concerns, vaccine hesitancy

INTRODUCTION

"Vaccine hesitancy" is a relatively new term used in research over the past few years to describe anyone who is doubtful about vaccinations or who chooses to delay or refuse immunizations even when they are readily available.1,2 Vaccines play a vital role in preventing diseases in children, so it is crucial that pharmacists and other healthcare professionals understand the reasons that parents are hesitant or refuse to vaccinate their children. Although there are no federal laws regarding vaccine administration, each state has laws in place dictating which vaccinations are required for children prior to entering schools.3 All 50 states allow medical exemptions for certain patients, such as those who are immune compromised or allergic to various vaccine components. Additionally, there are 30 states that allow exemptions for children whose parents cite religious reasons and 18 states that make special accommodations for those expressing philosophical reasons.3 States that have more lenient laws on vaccination requirements also have an increased rate of exemptions granted; this can lead to greater vulnerability in the population in terms of contracting preventable diseases.4

There have been a number of studies examining the reasons why parents refuse, delay, or are hesitant to vaccinate their children ( Table ). In one such study,5 77% of parents polled reported having concerns about one or more childhood vaccinations. Reasons expressed by parents vary widely but can be classified into 4 overarching categories. These categories are religious reasons, personal beliefs or philosophical reasons, safety concerns, and a desire for more information from healthcare providers. The purpose of this article is to equip pharmacists and other healthcare providers with an understanding of the most heavily cited reasons that influence parents not to vaccinate their children. This will better enable healthcare personnel to provide the education and awareness that patients' families need to make responsible immunization choices.

Table.

Table.

REASONS FOR VACCINE HESITANCY

Within each of the categories described above parents present a spectrum of compliance with vaccination, including delaying vaccinations, only refusing certain ones, or refusing immunizations completely. Religious reasons tend to account for the majority of total vaccine refusal, while parents with personal beliefs against immunization tend to be more willing to compromise and at least partially vaccinate their children. Parents are concerned with doing the best for their children, and hearing reports of potential safety issues or that childhood diseases are not a large threat can hinder them from vaccinating their children.

Religious Reasons

One of the most common reasons parents offer for choosing not to vaccinate their children stems from their religious beliefs. With only 4 states not offering exemptions to families for this reason, it poses a major obstacle to those seeking to increase childhood vaccination rates.3 Religious reasons are distinct from other cited reasons in that they are generally linked to the core beliefs of the parents, and it is very difficult to dissuade these individuals from views against immunization. These choices are not the by-product of ignorance but rather the intentional and calculated decision related to a staunch conviction. In addition, in contrast to other cited reasons for hesitancy, those driven by religious assertions most often are linked to a complete refusal of all vaccines.2

Imdad et al6 conducted a study in New York State and found that the rate of school vaccination exemptions due to religious reasons between 2000 and 2011 increased sharply. In response to this reality, lawmakers put in place guidelines that introduced requirements that mandated that in order for schools to grant religious exemptions, the parents had to demonstrate their "genuine and sincere religious belief" that contradicted the use of vaccinations.6 These burdens of proof are likely to become more popular as an increasing number of parents attempt to use the nebulous loophole of religious freedom to bypass the societal necessity of combating preventable diseases through immunizations. The authors6 further discovered that the counties that had higher exemption rates, ≥ 1%, also had an increase in reported pertussis cases, 33 per 100,000 compared to 20 per 100,000 in counties with lower exemption rates.

Wombwell et al7 evaluated different religions and the reasons that vaccines may violate their religious tenets. The explanation most commonly offered for why specific vaccinations oppose religious tenets involves components of the vaccines.7 The animal-derived gelatin used in producing some vaccines as well as the human fetus tissue used in the rubella component pose the largest concerns.7 By understanding the objections that large portions of the population hold, monies may be strategically targeted for research that can address these concerns and render vaccinations more acceptable for these groups.

Personal Beliefs or Philosophical Reasons

Another common reason that parents give for refusing or delaying vaccinating their children is personal or philosophical reasons. Although only a handful of states allow exemptions for this cause, it must be carefully studied, as it may present opportunities for practitioners to enlighten parents regarding the urgency of protecting the children through preventive measures. Though it seems contrary to human intuition, there is a group of people who see some benefit in having their children contract certain preventable diseases.8 Some parents believe that natural immunity is better for their children than is immunity acquired through vaccinations.8 Others express the belief that if their child contracts a preventable disease, it will be beneficial for the child in the long term, as it will help make the child's immune system stronger as he grows into adulthood.8-10 Some parents believe that the diseases for which we vaccinate are not very prevalent so their children are at minimal risk of contracting these diseases. For this reason, they also believe that the possible negative side effects of vaccine administration outweigh the benefits of the vaccines.9 Many parents do not see the preventable diseases as serious or life-threatening and would prefer to not put extra chemicals into their children's bodies.8,9 Other parents think if their children have healthy diets and lifestyles they are at a decreased risk of contracting preventable childhood diseases. They also are under the assumption that if they were to contract one of the diseases that it would be easily treatable.10

Safety Concerns

A third, and potentially the greatest, reason parents express for refusing vaccinations for their children are concerns about the safety of vaccines. Most of these concerns are based on information these parents have discovered in the media or received from acquaintances. Regardless of whether the stories stem from television, the Internet, radio, or from family and friends, parents are constantly bombarded with other peoples' opinions about vaccinations.2,8,10 All of this information can be overwhelming for some parents to sift through, making it difficult for them to make their own well-informed decision.8,10 Many of the reports and opinions that bombard parents and cause uncertainty are targeted at the safety of vaccines. They raise doubts about both short-term adverse reactions and the possibility of long-lasting negative effects.2,5,9,10 It is these concerns about safety that can cause parents to completely refuse vaccines.

Fredrickson et al8 found that the most commonly reported reason parents had for refusing one or more vaccines was other people or media reports. Stories in the popular media, such as social media and large-scale news outlets, are often sensationalized to elicit higher ratings and oftentimes spotlight a rare incident in which a child suffers as a result of an unforeseen side effect of a vaccine. Media that cite problems with components of vaccines (such as thimerosal) and report that vaccines can cause autism, brain damage, or behavioral problems cause parents to be more cautious and have more concerns regarding the safety of vaccines.2,5,8-10 Thimerosal, however, has been removed from those vaccines intended for children under 6 years of age for over a decade now.11 Accounts noting these rare occurrences breed fear in the hearts and minds of parents, who overestimate the dangers associated with vaccinations. Some fearful parents balk at the timing of immunizations. Fear can influence some parents to choose to delay vaccines so their child does not receive more than one vaccine at a time.9 They fear that simultaneously administering multiple vaccines may overload their child's immune system, and they think that allowing all of the vaccinations to occur according to the recommended schedule will make the safety risk greater. As a result of this logic, many choose to delay vaccines in order to better protect their children.9,10,12,13 While some may view this as a missed opportunity, others believe that a delayed vaccination schedule is superior to not receiving vaccinations at all. Many parents believe the side effects of vaccines are more extensive than what they are told by their physicians and that the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccinating their children.9,10 Healthy relationships between a practitioner and parent can go a long way toward helping patients in terms of this concern. Trust is paramount and will help put parents at ease and help them overcome unmerited fears.

Desire for Additional Education

The fourth common thread is that parents want more information regarding vaccinations. They want to be able to make informed decisions about their child's healthcare by knowing both the benefits and risks associated with each vaccine.9,10,14 In a study conducted by Gust et al,14 approximately one-third of parents indicated that they did not have enough access to sufficient information, and the majority of those parents did not think their child's provider was easy to talk to. Many parents desire to have more detailed information regarding the side effects and benefits associated with vaccines expressed in a factual way that does not appear to be trying to sway them one way or the other regarding vaccinating their child.8,10

A vital role pharmacists and other healthcare providers can play would involve the provision of unbiased, factual information relating to vaccines as well as the discussion of these materials with the parents.1 There are a number of resources online, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics Web sites, as well as print resources that can be provided to parents. Parents want to be able to have open conversations with their child's healthcare provider in which they do not feel judged or attacked.2,8,9 Parents would like to have the freedom to be able to ask questions without judgment. Physicians are one of the most important sources of information for parents who are making decisions about their children's healthcare.2,8,10 In a study conducted by Kennedy et al12 noted that 81.7% of parents said their child's healthcare provider was one of the most important sources of information. When parents do not get the information they want from their providers they seek information from other sources that can potentially mislead and misinform them, causing them to make poor choices for their children.8,10

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

If pharmacists and other healthcare providers are able to understand the main concerns parents have about vaccinating their children, they can be better prepared to have informative conversations about immunizations. They will also be able to provide the information parents need to make the best-informed decisions for their children. Parents who are hesitant to vaccinate or who refuse vaccines care about their children and want to do what they can to protect them, just like any other parent. It is important for practitioners to have open and frank conversations with their patients and their families so that the families will understand the benefits of vaccination without feeling attacked or judged for having questions about their child's healthcare.5,8,9

Education and taking time with patients have been shown to result in modest improvement in terms of affecting parents' attitudes about immunization, but the exact messages or tools for healthcare providers should use have not been fully discovered.15 Understanding the source of parents' questions can equip pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers to speak with patients on a more relatable level and to speak to the areas parents value the most. All healthcare workers should make an effort to stay up to date on the recommended vaccines and to understand why those immunizations are recommended. This information will allow patients to have face-to-face access to reliable information that can help them to make the best decisions for their families. Additional research aimed at evaluating how practitioners can better provide information to parents to help them see the importance and benefits of vaccinations needs to be conducted.

Acknowledgments

At the time of publication, Kristin Bohannon was a Doctor of Pharmacy candidate at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Pharmacy, Abilene, Texas.

Footnotes

Disclosures The authors declare no conflicts or financial interest in any product or service mentioned in the manuscript, including grants, equipment, medications, employment, gifts, and honoraria.

Articles from The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics : JPPT are provided here courtesy of Pediatric Pharmacology Advocacy Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the Reasons Behind Parental Refusal of Vaccines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parental refusal of vaccines is a growing a concern for the increased occurrence of vaccine preventable diseases in children. A number of studies have looked into the reasons that parents refuse, delay, or are hesitant to vaccinate their child(ren). These ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Ocean Pollution Affects Humans - Planet Aid, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Andrew Dilevics The environment pays a heavy price for our "fast fashion" habits. The textile industry regularly contaminates waterways with dyes and waste, and washing our synthetic clothing releases plastic microfibers into the ocean. Growing enough cotton to produce just one t-shirt requires up to 700 gallon of water!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Legal and Illegal Immigration to the United States

Other sites are welcome to link to this page, but not to reproduce or repurpose our copyrighted content. Please see our reprinting policy for details on how to request permission to reprint ProCon.org content.

"[T]he settlement on the James River in 1607 marked the beginning of a nation--a nation that was certainly English in its foundation, whatever may be said of the superstructure. Virginia, New England, Maryland, the Carolinas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia were begun by Englishmen; and New England, Virginia, and Maryland remained almost entirely English throughout the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth. 'Foreigners' began early to straggle into the colonies. But not until the eighteenth century was well under way did they come in appreciable numbers, and even then the great bulk of these non-English newcomers were from the British Isles, of Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and Scotch-Irish extraction."

- Importation of African Slaves Begins

"The continuous presence of persons of African descent on soil that became the United States begins in 1619 with the arrival of twenty Africans at Jamestown, Virginia, aboard a Dutch warship from the West Indies. Their arrival was a part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade; lasting almost four centuries (1501-1873). Although the twenty Africans... arrived by virtue of the slave trade, they actually became indentured servants, Thus, they eventually gained their freedom, and some later actually owned slaves themselves... By the end of the colonial period, blacks numbered about five hundred thousand and constituted their largest proportion of the total American population ever, nearly 20 percent."

Larry A. Greene, PhD Lenworth Gunther, PhD The New Jersey African- American History Curriculum Guide: Grades 9 to 12, 1997

- Massachusetts Requires Permission to Host Aliens

In May of 1637, the General Court of Massachusetts ordered that no town or person in the colony should receive or host any alien without permission from the authorities. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, defended the 1637 court order as follows:

"If we heere be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath a right to come into us without our consent... If we are bound to keep off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine or damage, then may we lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtful to us."

"Although most of the settlements were made by Englishmen, they nevertheless differed fundamentally in character and purpose, and pursued, in some instances, widely varying policies in the admission of new settlers... For a period of several years, beginning with 1656, the records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and indeed of all of the New England Colonies, except Rhode Island, are filled with legislation designed to prevent the coming of the Quakers and the spread of their 'accursed tenets.' Whippings, imprisonment, banishment, and in a few instances capital punishment, were the order of the day.' To what extent these various laws restricted the immigration of this sect, it is, of course, impossible to ascertain. That they were not prohibitive, and consequently did not meet the expectations of the authorities, is painfully evident; for, in spite of the severe penalties, members of that sect continued to come."

"Colonial immigration laws... set precedents that were followed in subsequent national legislation. Colonial Americans, who viewed strangers as legitimate objects of suspicion, cautiously allowed sttlers but were wary of those of religious difference (i.e., Catholics/Jesuits) or those who might become public charges. The influx of Germans and Quakers in the early 1700s led to specific provincial immigration laws... The [Mar. 12, 1700 Province Laws of Massachusetts], enacted nine years after the two Massachusetts Bay colonies unified into one province, demonstrates their economic concerns. Lame, impotent, or infirm persons were prohibited from entering without providing security that the town into which they settled would not be charged with their support. That first major provincial law was amended in 1722 [Province Laws, Massachusetts, June 29, 1722] to increase the bond to secure that no immigrant would become a public charge and specifying the requirement of masters of ships to submit their list to town selectmen or the town treasurer."

Ed., Michael C. Lemay, PhD Elliott R. Barkan, PhD U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History, 1999

"In 1740 the British Parliament passed an act which came to be known as the Plantation Act --meaning the colonies--that sought to regularize the naturalization process. As such, it was also intended to encourage immigration to the American colonies. Under British law at the time, aliens could not engage in British commerce without severe penalties. This aspect was not rigorously enforced in the colonies, but nonetheless such British law made it advantageous for immigrants of the colonies to become naturalized citizens. In England itself, the naturalization process required a profession of Christian faith and proof that an individual had taken the Sacrament in a Protestant church. As noted in this law for the colonies, exception was made for Quakers and Jews but specifically not for Roman Catholics (referred to in the law as Papists). This law, although British... governed all the English colonies until Independence, and furthermore... it was the model upon which the first U.S. naturalization act, with respect to time, oath of allegiance, process of swearing before a judge, and the like, was clearly based."

Michael C. Lemay, PhD Elliott R. Barkan, PhD Ed., U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History, 1999

"The original [ 1790 Alien Naturalization Act (165KB)

] provided the first rules to be followed by all of the United States in the granting of national citizenship. At that time and by that law naturalization was limited to aliens who were 'free white persons' and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women, all of whom were considered dependents and thus incapable of casting an independent vote. The 1790 Act also limited naturalization to persons of 'good moral character.' And the law required a set period of residence in the United States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in the state of residence when applying for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant could file a Petition for Naturalization with 'any common law court of record' having jurisdiction over his residence asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant's good moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. The clerk of court was to make a record of these proceedings, and 'thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.' It is from this structure of steps and requirements that U.S. naturalization evolved."

- Alien and Sedition Acts Enacted; US President Given Power to Punish and Deport Immigrants; Residency Requirement for Naturalization Increases to 14 Years

"Signed into law by President John Adams in 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts consisted of four laws passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress as America prepared for war with France. [ An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, An Act Concerning Aliens, An Act Respecting Alien Enemies, and An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States] These acts increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered 'dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States' and restricted speech critical of the government. These laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party. Negative reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts helped contribute to the Democratic-Republican victory in the 1800 elections. Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802, while the other acts were allowed to expire."

- Supreme Court Rules in New York v. Miln That States May Take Precautionary Measures Against the Importation of "Paupers, Vagabonds, Convicts, and Infectious Articles"

"The New York laws were challenged in New York v. Miln (1837)

. The defendant, a ship's master, argued that the New York laws obstructed interstate and foreign commerce. The Supreme Court, however, sustained the laws as a legitimate exercise of the state's police power. Justice Philip P. Barbour stated that it was as competent and necessary for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound or infectious articles imported, or from a ship, the crew of which may be laboring under an infectious disease."

- Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo Results in United States Acquiring Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, and Parts of Utah and Nevada

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo [Feb. 2, 1848]

ended the Mexican-American War allowing the United States to acquire Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, California, and parts of Utah and Nevada from Mexico. 80,000 Mexicans living in the territory are allowed to remain and receive citizenship. By 1849, the English-speaking population of California reached 100,000 compared to 13,000 of Mexican ancestry.

"In 1849, some organized into an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant political group famously called the 'Know-Nothings,' which derived its name from the secrecy of its members. [They] believed that native-born Americans were superior to the newly arrived immigrant groups on the basis that Irish and German immigrants tended to be poorer and Catholic, which Know-Nothings took as traits of cultural and economic backwardness."

US Library of Congress (USLOC), "Teacher Guide, Primary Source Set, Immigration Challenges for New Americans," www.loc.gov (accessed June 29, 2009)

"In national politics, the Know-Nothing movement reached its climax in 1856... The KnowNothings demanded an end to pauper and criminal immigration, the repeal of state laws which permitted foreigners to vote before they had completed the naturalization process, and the repeal of Congressional land grants to unnaturalized foreigners. They opposed the 'aggressive policy and corrupting tendencies' of the Roman Catholic Church, favored filling public offices with Americans by 'birth, education, and training,' opposed exclusion of the Bible from the public schools, and advocated a 21-year residence requirement for naturalization."

- First Congressional Attempt to Centralize Immigration Control; A Commissioner of Immigration Is Appointed by the US President

"First Congressional attempt to centralize control of immigration.
a. A Commissioner of Immigration was appointed by the President to serve under the authority of the Secretary of State.
b. Authorized immigrant labor contracts whereby would-be immigrants would pledge their wages to pay for transportation."

- State Immigration Laws Become Unconstitutional; Congress Begins to Bring Immigration Under Direct Federal Control for the First Time

"In Henderson v. Mayor of New York , the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce. In response to Henderson, states abolished their immigration commissions and port authorities. The entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthrophic organizations. Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx... In the 1880s. Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time. It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force."

"In the beginning Congress created the Chinese Exclusion Act (17KB)

... That May 1882 statute, which has long been treated as a minor if somewhat disreputable incident, can now be seen as a nodal point in the history of American immigration policy. It marked the moment when the golden doorway of admission to the United States began to narrow and initiated a thirty-nine-year period of successive exclusions of certain kinds of immigrants, 1882-1921, followed by twenty two years, 1921-43, when statutes and administrative actions set narrowing numerical limits for those immigrants who had not otherwise been excluded. During those years a federal burocracy was created to control immigration and immigrants, a bureaucracy whose initial raison d'être was to keep out first Chinese and then others who were deemed inferior."

Roger Daniels, PhD Guarding the Golden Door, American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882, 2004

"In response to a remarkable intensity of complaint on the West Coast, which was increasingly expressed nationwide, Congress moved rapidly toward a historic reversal of the tradition of laissez-faire in immigration matters... [and] by wide margins passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, suspending the admission of Chinese laborers for ten years... It was the first sharp curtailment of immigration to America and was extended with minor adjustments for sixty years... A new tradition of restricting U.S. immigration through federal policy had begun... The Chinese Exclusion Act, with its misleading, inept title and other flaws apparent to people living a century later, prevented what had been building as a massive and sustained immigration of Chinese laborers to Jinshan-'the Golden Mountain.'"

"[I]n 1886, the Statue of Liberty, on Bedloe's Island, was dedicated as a gift of the French nation to the American people and as a symbol of their eternal friendship. The statue was the work of Auguste Bartholdi... The funds needed to build a pedestal for the monument were raised by a campaign sponsored by the New York World, owned by Joseph Pulitzer, a Hungarian refugee, and it was Emma Lazarus who wrote the immortal lines for the tablet inside the pedestal, with their oft-quoted invitation to 'the tired, the poor, the homeless and the tempest-tost,' 'the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'"

[Editor's Note: The following is the 1883 poem by Emma Lazarus titled "The New Colossus" engraved on the bronze plaque inside the statue's pedestal:

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
( see an image of the plaque)]

"In the 1896 case Wong Wing vs. US, the Supreme Court ruled that even an immigrant who had broken immigration law still had the right to make his case to a judge before being 'deprived of life, liberty, or property.' [The Supreme Court stated:] '[A]ll persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' The court decision establishes that the US Constitution'' Fifth and Sixth amendments-which grant the right to a public trial and prohibit detention without due legal process-extend to all people on US soil."

Annalisa Merelli, MA "Do Undocumented Immigrants Have the Right to a Day in Court? The Supreme Court Answered in 1896," qz.com, June 25, 2018

"To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States... Whatever considerations, in the absence of a controlling provision of the Constitution, might influence the legislative or the executive branch of the Government to decline to admit persons of the Chinese race to the status of citizens of the United States, there are none that can constrain or permit the judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the peremptory and explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares and ordains that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'"

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (366KB)

"The so-called Organic Act of 1900

declared that 'all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii...' At the time of the annexation more than half of the islands' population was Japanese, and about a quarter was Chinese: few were citizens of Hawaii, but thousands of them, mostly Japanese, were enabled to migrate further east to California. In addition, of course, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, every person born in Hawaii after the annexation was a birthright citizen. So the United States would soon have tens of thousands of citizens of Asian ancestry."

Roger Daniels, PhD Guarding the Golden Door, American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882, 2004

- Naturalization Act Creates Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization

"On June 27, 1906, Congress passed an act (34 Stat. 596) that expanded the existing Immigration Bureau to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and put it in charge of 'all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens.' Although the new Bureau was part of the Department of Labor and Commerce initially, and part of the Department of Labor from 1913 to 1940, most of its operations were directed by the Department of Justice, and, in 1940, the Bureau was made part of the Justice Department. Under the act of 1906, every petition for naturalization became a case for examination by Bureau officials.

This act also established the basic procedure for naturalization during the period 1906-52. The procedure began with the filing of a declaration of intention, which recorded the applicant's oath to the clerk of the court that it was his or her bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, to reside permanently therein, and to renounce all allegiances to other nations. Within a period of 2 to 7 years after filing the declaration, the applicant could petition the court for citizenship, presenting at this time the affidavits of two witnesses with personal knowledge of the applicant, stating that the applicant had resided in the United States for at least 5 years and possessed a good moral character. The petition then became the subject of an investigation and hearing before a judge. Officials of the Bureau conducted preliminary examinations and submitted findings and recommendations to the court. The hearing before a judge was the last step in the procedure, provided the judge found the findings and recommendation of naturalization officials favorable and satisfactory. If so, the applicant would take an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and laws and renounce all foreign allegiances, and the judge would issue an order of admission to citizenship and grant the applicant a certificate of citizenship. However, a judge could also order a continuance of the investigation or deny the petition, listing the reasons for the denial. A major change in this procedure occurred in 1952, when the filing of the declaration of intention was eliminated."

Eileen Bolger "Background History of the United States Naturalization Process," www.colorado.gov, June 18, 2003

"The Expatriation Act, or "An Act in Reference to the Expatriation of Citizens and Their Protection Abroad, 1907," approved by Congress on Mar. 2, 1907, declared that 1. any US citizen who becomes a citizen of another country or has pledged allegiance to another country has expatriated him/herself; 2. any naturalized US citizen who returns to his/her home country and lives there for two years, or lives in any other foreign country for five years has expatriated him/herself; 3. "any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband," and will not be a US citizen but may resume her US citizenship if the marriage is terminated; 4. any foreign woman who marries an American man may retain her US citizenship after the marriage is terminated if she continues to live in the United States; 5. any child born in the United States to immigrant parents will be a US citizen if the parents become US citizens while the child is a minor and while the child lives in the United States permanently; and 6. any child born outside of the United States to US citizens is required to pledge allegiance to the United States when he/she turns 18-years-old.

In 1922 Congress repealed most of the part of the Expatriation Act that expatriated women. Women who married immigrants not eligible for citizenship, mainly Chinese and Japanese men, forfeited their citizenship until the Magnuson Immigration Act of 1943 repealed the exclusion laws.

" An Act in Reference to the Expatriation of Citizens and Their Protection Abroad, 1907," (274 KB) American Society of International Law, Apr. 1907

- United States and Japan Sign the "Gentlemen's Agreement" Allowing Japanese "Picture Brides" to Immigrate

"In 1907, amidst the anti-Japanese pressures in California, President Theodore Roosevelt and the Government of Japan reached an agreement stopping issuance of passports to Japanese laborers but continuing issuing passports to laborers who had been in the U.S. previously and also to parents, wives, relatives of those already in the U.S.

This essentially eliminated new Japanese laborers but thousands of wives (picture brides) came over. The purpose of this 'Gentlemen's Agreement' was to stop Japanese immigration but it did not have the desired effect as thousands of 'picture brides' continued to arrive. It was euphemistically called 'The Gentlemen's Agreement.' A halt to all Japanese immigration was achieved by law in 1924."

- The Melting Pot Play Opens on Broadway; Its Title Becomes a Metaphor for the United States

Theater Programme of The Melting Pot by Israel Zangwill.
Source: Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org (accessed July 21, 2009)

"Israel Zangwill's play [The Melting Pot] about immigrants in America becomes one of the most successful productions in the history of Broadway. Zangwill updates the story of Romeo and Juliet. This time, instead of feuding families in a medieval Italian city, the lovers were from Russian Jewish and Russian Cossack families. Zangwill's play emphatically claimed that America was a new country where the old hatreds had no place. For the new immigrants in America to try to keep alive their old hatreds and prejudices was pointless, evil, and probably impossible. God, Zangwill claimed, was using America as 'a crucible' to melt the 'fifty' barbarian tribes of Europe into a metal from which He can cast Americans... Zangwill was telling his audience that they were being molded in the fires of the Almighty into a new thing: the American. And they loved it... [He] had found exactly the right metaphor to translate the urban immigrant experience into American Exceptionalism. If they would but suffer to be melted in the pot, then they would become just as American as anyone else."

- Mexican Revolution Drives Thousands of Mexicans across the US-Mexican Border

"Development of mining and industry in northern Mexico, as well as building of north-south railroad lines, attracted large numbers of Mexicans to the northern part of the country in the late nineteenth century... At the same time, economic pressures were mounting. Many small landowners were losing their holdings to expanding haciendas, while farm workers were increasingly and systematically trapped into peonage by accumulating debts. Finally in 1910, political opponents of [Mexican] President Porfirio Diaz revolted. He was quickly overthrown, but replacement of his government did not end the Mexican Revolution which spread throughout the country and took on deep social and economic, rather than merely political ramifications. The resulting chaos drove thousands of Mexicans north. Beyond physical proximity, the United States offered jobs - in industry, in mines, on railroads, and in agriculture - and all at wage levels far higher than those in Mexico. World War I further increased the demand for Mexican labor."

Joseph A. Pitti, PhD Antonia Castaneda, PhD Carlos Cortes, PhD "Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California: Mexican Americans in California," www.nps.org, Nov. 17, 2004

- Eugenics Movement Influences Immigration Policy

"The Englishman Francis Galton coined the term eugenics, but the American zoologist Charles Davenport brought the movement to prominence when he founded the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) [in 1910] at Cold Spring Harbor, New York... Eugenicists contrasted pedigrees of families carrying superior traits - such as intelligence and musical ability - with those carrying 'dysgenic' traits - such as promiscuity and 'feeblemindedness...' Eugenicists feared that genes for feeblemindedness were insidiously ruining the American germ plasm from within, while allegedly inferior immigrants from southern and eastern Europe threatened from without."

Cold Spring Harbor Labratory "Image Archive of the American Eugenics Movement," www.dnalc.org (accessed Aug. 12, 2009)

"Beginning in 1914, the Surgeon General and a number of senior officers in the PHS [Public Health Service] became publicly aligned with the eugenics movement. They took prominent roles in eugenic organizations and published articles to support the eugenicists' position in the immigration restriction debate."

" Immigration Act of 1917 (2.5MB)

('Asiatic Barred Zone Act'). Denies entry to immigrants from the 'Asiatic Barred Zone'--much of eastern Asia and the Pacific Islands. It also sets a literacy requirement for immigrants over 16 and a head tax for entry into the country; it bars entry by 'idiots,' 'feeble-minded persons,' 'epileptics,' 'insane persons,' alcoholics, 'professional beggars,' all persons 'mentally or physically defective,' polygamists, and anarchists."

Jane Guskin David L. Wilson The Politics of Immigration, 2007

- Ozawa v. US Supreme Court Decision Declares Japanese Ineligible for Citizenship

"The issue of U.S. citizenship eventually was decided by the 1922 Supreme Court decision [9-0] of Takao Ozawa v. United States, which declared that Japanese were ineligible for U.S. citizenship. 'Free white persons' were made eligible for U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1790. 'Aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent' were similarly designated by Congress in 1870. Due to some ambiguity about the term 'white,' some 420 Japanese had been naturalized by 1910, but a ruling by a U.S. attorney general to stop issuing naturalization papers to Japanese ended the practice in 1906. Ozawa had filed his naturalization papers in 1914. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court judged that since Ozawa was neither a 'free white person' nor an African by birth or descent, he did not have the right of naturalization as a Mongolian."

US National Parks Service "A History of Japanese Americans in California: Discriminatory Practices," www.nps.gov, Nov. 17, 2004

- US Supreme Court Decides in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind That Asian Indians Do Not Qualify for Naturalization because They Are Not Considered "White"

"Bhagat Singh Thind, a native of Punjab, immigrated to America in 1913. Working in an Oregon lumber mill he paid his way through University of California, Berkeley and enlisted in the United States Army in 1917, when the United States entered World War I. He was honorably discharged in 1918. In 1920 he applied for citizenship and was approved by the U.S. District Court. The Bureau of Naturalization appealed the case, which made its way to the Supreme Court. Thind's attorneys expected a favorable decision since the year before in the Ozawa ruling the same Court had declared Caucasians eligible for citizenship and Thind, as most North Indians, was clearly Caucasian. Now the Supreme Court found it necessary to qualify 'Caucasian' as being synonymous with 'white,' according to the understanding of the common man of the time... Because of the [9-0] Thind decision [ United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind

], many Indians who were already naturalized had their citizenship rescinded. The Thind decision also meant that the Alien Land Law applied to the many Indian immigrants who had already purchased or leased land. After this ruling some landowners lost their property."

"[T]he Johnson-Reed Act of [May 26,] 1924

limited the total European immigration to 150,000 per year, and reduced each nationality's allowance to 2 percent of its U.S. population in 1890. Because significantly fewer Southern and Eastern Europeans were recorded in the 1890 census than in 1920, this effectively reduced immigration from these regions while making more room than was necessary for countries like Great Britain. In 1929, when the quota system was finalized, the ratio of immigrants admittable from northern and western Europe versus southern and eastern Europe was roughly five to one. In 1924, America had effectively shut its 'Golden Door.' Fewer than 350,000 Europeans immigrated to America during the 1930s, and a high percentage of these were political refugees, particularly from nazi Germany and, at the end of the decade, occupied Europe. In general, these immigrants came from a much higher socio-economic class than their predecessors."

"Until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, Indians occupied an unusual status under federal law. Some had acquired citizenship by marrying white men. Others received citizenship through military service, by receipt of allotments, or through special treaties or special statutes. But many were still not citizens, and they were barred from the ordinary processes of naturalization open to foreigners. Congress took what some saw as the final step on June 2, 1924 and granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States."

- Nationality Act Unifies Nationality and Naturalization Laws

"The enactment of the Nationality Act of 1940, which was approved and became law on October 14, 1940, represents the first attempt ever made since the founding of our Republic to codify and unify all the laws of the United States relating to the important subjects of nationality and naturalization."

George S. Knight, "Nationality Act of 1940," American Bar Association Journal, Dec. 1940

"President Roosevelt, encouraged by officials at all levels of the federal government, authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066

, dated February 19, 1942, gave the military broad powers to ban any citizen from a fifty- to sixty-mile-wide coastal area stretching from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona. The order also authorized transporting these citizens to assembly centers hastily set up and governed by the military in California, Arizona, Washington state, and Oregon. Although it is not well known, the same executive order (and other war-time orders and restrictions) were also applied to smaller numbers of residents of the United States who were of Italian or German descent. For example, 3,200 resident aliens of Italian background were arrested and more than 300 of them were interned. About 11,000 German residents-including some naturalized citizens-were arrested and more than 5000 were interned. Yet while these individuals (and others from those groups) suffered grievous violations of their civil liberties, the war-time measures applied to Japanese Americans were worse and more sweeping, uprooting entire communities and targeting citizens as well as resident aliens."

History Matters "Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation," www.historymatters.gmu.edu (accessed July 15, 2009)

"In response to Japanese aggression in the Aleutians [Islands], U.S. authorities evacuated 881 Unangax [people native to Alaska] from nine villages. They were herded from their homes onto cramped transport ships, most allowed only a single suitcase. Heartbroken, Atka villagers watched as U.S. servicemen set their homes and church afire so they would not fall into Japanese hands."

US National Parks Service "Aleutian World War II: Evacuation and Internment, 1942-1945," www.nps.gov (accessed Jan. 22, 2015)

- US Supreme Court Justifies Executive Order 9066 in Hirabayashi v. The United States and Korematsu v. The United States

"[T]he Supreme Court... was loath to interfere with what the [President Franklin D. Roosevelt] administration considered a necessary war measure [Executive Order 9066]. Three cases testing the constitutionality of the evacuation orders were heard by the Court. In the first case, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)

, the Court sustained [9-0] the legitimacy of the curfew, but evaded ruling on the wider implications of relocation. In the second case, Korematsu v. United States [1944]

, the Court [6-3] could no longer ignore the core issue of whether loyal citizens could be summarily relocated to detention camps solely on the basis of their race. Although a majority of the Court agreed with Justice Black's view that military necessity justified the relocation, three members of the Court... dissented... On the same day, the Court unanimously authorized a writ of habeas corpus for Mitsuye Endo, a citizen whose loyalty had been clearly established."

"After China became an ally during World War II, the exclusion laws proved to be an embarrassment and were finally repealed by the Magnuson Act in 1943

. This bill made it possible for Chinese to become naturalized citizens and gave them an annual quota of 105 immigrants... As the annual quota of 105 immigrants indicates, America's immigration policy was restrictive and particularly discriminatory against Chinese and other Asians."

William Wei, PhD "The Chinese-American Experience: An Introduction," www.HarpWeek.com (accessed June 8, 2009)

"In 1965, the United States passed the landmark Hart-Celler [Immigration and Nationality] Act

, abolishing nation-of-origin restrictions. Effective June 30, 1968, immigration and naturalization exclusion on the basis of race, sex, or nationality was prohibited. Under the Hart-Celler Act, new immigration criteria was based on kinship ties, refugee status, and 'needed skills.' Between 1820 and 1960, 34.5 million Europeans immigrated to the U.S., while only one million Asians-mostly Chinese and Japanese-immigrated. An unintended, unanticipated, and highly evident effect of Hart-Celler was the burgeoning of Asian immigration. Between 1870-1965, a total of 16,013 Indians immigrated to the United States. In the first decade following the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, 96,735 Indians immigrated. For the most part, these new Indian immigrants entered under the needed skills preference of the 1965 law."

- Armed Forces Naturalization Act Allows Veterans Who Served Active-Duty to Become Naturalized Citizens

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act gave US military veterans who served in active-duty capacity in Vietnam or other "military hostilities" the ability to become naturalized citizens.

"Public Law 90-633," www.library.uwb.edu, Oct. 24, 1968

- President Gerald Ford Repeals Executive Order 9066 Proclaming WWII Japanese Relocation a "National Mistake"

"After World War II, some Japanese Americans thought the U.S. government should officially recognize that it had denied their rights and unjustly incarcerated them. Beginning with a few individuals, these efforts grew into a national movement to obtain an apology and compensation from the U.S. government for wrongful actions taken against people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, and to help ensure that such injustices would never be allowed again. Japanese Americans and their supporters sought redress for injustice through all three branches of government, all of which had contributed to the denial of their constitutional rights... One successful effort resulted in President Gerald Ford's repeal of Executive Order 9066 in 1976, thirty-four years after it had been signed."

Denshô "Legacies of Incarceration: Redress," www.densho.org (accessed July 21, 2009)

- Census Estimates 2 to 4 Million Immigrants in the United States Illegally with about Half from Mexico

"[T]he undocumented Mexican population in 1980 was in the 1-2 million range, with the total number from all countries falling in the range of 2-4 million... Of the undocumented present and counted in 1980, 941,000 entered during 1975-1980; 576,000 entered during 1970-1974; and 540,000 entered before 1970... Finally, the estimates for 1980 show a high proportion of recent arrivals, and very few who entered the United States prior to 1960."

Robert Warren , Jeffrey S. Passel, PhD "A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census," Demography, Aug. 1987

- Refugee Act of 1980 Allows Persecuted Individuals to Seek Asylum in United States

"The primary goal of the Refugee Act of 1980

was to bring U.S. law into compliance with the requirements of international law. Though domestic U.S. law has long contained provisions designed to protect certain persons fearing persecution, U.S. accession to the 1967 Refugee Protocol created certain specific legal obligations pursuant to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Years of controversy about these obligations led to the passage of the Refugee Act. The act contains a definition of the term 'refugee' derived from the 1951 convention. The definition includes, in brief, any person unable or unwilling to return to his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion... In addition the act permits individuals within the United States and at the U.S. border to apply for 'asylum' or 'restriction on removal,' formerly known as 'withholding of deportation.'"

- Plyler v. Doe Overturns Texas Law Disallowing State Funds for Non-Citizens

"A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. ...[In Plyler v. Doe, decided [5-4] on June 15, 1982, t]he Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people 'in any ordinary sense of the term' and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a 'compelling state interest,' the Court struck down the law."

- Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) Grants Legal Status to Qualifying Immigrants Who Entered the US Illegally before Jan. 1, 1982

"The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements: ...The alien must establish that he entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and that he has resided continuously in the United States in an unlawful status since such date and through the date the application is filed under this subsection... In the case of an alien who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant before January 1, 1982, the alien must establish that the alien's period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired before such date through the passage of time or the alien's unlawful status was known to the Government as of such date."

- First Detailed National Count of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Estimates 3.4 Million Immigrants in United States Illegally

"In 1994, the INS [US Immigration and Naturalization Service] developed the first detailed national estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States. Those estimates indicated that the unauthorized resident population was 3.4 million as of October 1992."

- Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act Allows Some 300,000 Central Americans to Become Legal Residents

"In enacting the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996

, Congress rewrote provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that pertain to the circumstances under which certain aliens subject to expulsion from the United States may become legal residents. How aliens are affected by these statutory changes is being played out most vividly in the cases of Central Americans who first came to seek asylum the United States in the 1980s. As many as 300,000 Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans are potentially affected by these revisions."

- Section 245(i) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act Grants Legalization to Qualifying Immigrants in the US Illegally

"Adjustment of status under Section 245(i) is one of several immigration benefit provisions created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act and LIFE Act Amendments (LIFE Act) enacted on December 21, 2000... Section 245(i) allows certain persons who have an immigrant visa immediately available but entered without inspection or otherwise violated their status and thus are ineligible to apply for adjustment of status in the United States-to apply if they pay a $1,000 penalty... This is an important benefit for eligible individuals. Without Section 245(i), many individuals who entered illegally or violated their status are restricted from filing for adjustment in the United States and must obtain their immigrant visas overseas... The LIFE Act also... Creates a new temporary 'V' non-immigrant status to allow the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents... to be admitted to and work in the United States while they are waiting for a visa number."

- Terrorist Attacks Prompt US Department of Defense to Expand Military Support along the Borders

"The military generally provides support to law enforcement and immigration authorities along the southern border. Reported escalations in criminal activity and illegal immigration, however, have prompted some lawmakers to reevaluate the extent and type of military support that occurs in the border region... Addressing domestic laws and activities with the military, however, might run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act [U.S. Code, Title 18, § 1385], which prohibits use of the armed forces to perform the tasks of civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorized...

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, military support was expanded to include counterterrorism activities. Although the DOD [Department of Defense] does not have the 'assigned responsibility to stop terrorists from coming across our borders,' its support role in counterdrug and counterterrorism efforts appears to have increased the Department's profile in border security."

- Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act Updates Immigration Databases and Travel Document Requirements

"Approximately eight months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, on May 14, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. ...It represents the most comprehensive immigration-related response to the continuing terrorist threat America faces.

The Border Security law contains several provisions that are critical to our ability to control our border. Among the most important are:
A requirement that the immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) make interoperable all its internal databases, so that all information about a particular alien may be accessed with a single search;

A requirement that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies share data on aliens with the INS and the State Department; and

A requirement that all travel and entry documents, including visas, issued to aliens by the United States be machine-readable and tamper-resistant and include a standard biometric identifier."

Rosemary Jenks, JD "The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002, H.R. 3525," www.cis.org, June 2002

"The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a comprehensive multi-year plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has announced an overall vision for the SBI which includes:

More agents to patrol our borders, secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws;

Expanded detention and removal capabilities to eliminate 'catch and release' once and for all;

A comprehensive and systemic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of UAVs, and next-generation detection technology;

Increased investment in infrastructure improvements at the border - providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and

Greatly increased interior enforcement of our immigration laws - including more robust worksite enforcement."

- Secure Fence Act Authorizes Fencing along the US-Mexican Border

Playing volleyball over the border fence at Borderfield State Park, San Diego, CA
Source: "Viva Border Volleyball!" LAWeekly, July 27, 2006

"The Secure Fence Act was signed into law on October 26, 2006. The Act authorizes the construction of [700] hundreds of miles of double-layered fencing along the nation's Southern border. It also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take action to stop the unlawful entry of undocumented immigrants, terrorists, and contraband into the U.S. using both personnel and surveillance technology. The Secretary is further instructed to evaluate U.S. Customs and Border Protection training and equipment. Finally, the Act requests a study on the feasibility of constructing an improved security system along the Northern border."

Amy M. Traub, MA "2007 Edition: Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class," www.drummajorinstitute.org, 2007

- US Department of Homeland Security Estimates 11.8 Million Unauthorized Immigrants in US with 59% from Mexico

"[A]n estimated 11.8 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in January 2007 compared to 8.5 million in 2000. Between 2000 and 2007, the unauthorized population increased 3.3 million; the annual average increase during this period was 470,000. Nearly 4.2 million (35 percent) of the total 11.8 million unauthorized residents in 2007 had entered in 2000 or later. An estimated 7.0 million (59 percent) were from Mexico."

- Estimated Number of Unauthorized Immigrants Decreases to 11.6 Million

"[T]he number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States declined from 11.8 million in January 2007 to 11.6 million in January 2008 [a 1.7% decrease]. The 2008 estimate marks the first time since 2005 when DHS began producing annual estimates that there was not a year-to-year increase in unauthorized residents. During the 2000-2008 period, the unauthorized immigrant population increased by 37 percent."

- Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law

"A federal judge Wednesday temporarily blocked key parts of Arizona's new immigration law on the eve of implementation...

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted the Obama administration's request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government, not states...

...[Judge Bolton] blocked a requirement that police check the immigration status of people stopped for such routine infractions as traffic violations, if police suspect they are in the U.S. illegally... [and] a section that required law enforcement to detain individuals until their legal status was clarified...

She also blocked a section that required foreigners to carry documents proving they had permission to be in the U.S., and another provision that banned illegal immigrants from seeking work in Arizona."

- Inflow of Unauthorized Immigrants in 2007-2009 Decreased by Two-Thirds from 2000-2005

"The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants to the United States was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005, according to new estimates [released Sep. 1, 2010] by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center."

Pew Research Center US Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade," , www.pewresearch.org, Sep. 1, 2010

"Hours after the report was released, the Obama administration credited its tough enforcement measures for the decline, citing its crackdown on employers, stepped-up deportations and plentiful staffing of the Border Patrol. Analysts of migration patterns, however, say the single largest factor is probably the economy."

Los Angeles Times "A Window for Immigration Reform," www.latimes.com, Sep. 3, 2010

- US Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses That Hire Undocumented Immigrants

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes sanctions against businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The court, on a 5-3 vote, said federal immigration law does not bar Arizona from suspending or revoking the licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens...

Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the Arizona law in 2007, saying that while immigration is a federal responsibility, Arizona had been forced to deal with the issue because the demand for cheap, undocumented labor in the state was contributing to illegal immigration.

Numerous organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, argued the state's law was preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which forbids states from imposing sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants...

Several states have enacted measures that seek to penalize employers for hiring illegal workers, while others are considering legislation similar to Arizona's."

Wall Street Journal Brent Kendall and Stephanie Gleason, "US High Court Upholds Arizona Immigration Law Targeting Employers," www.wsj.com, May 26, 2

- US Supreme Court Upholds Centerpiece of 2010 Arizona Immigration Law, Rejects Other Provisions

"The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision on Arizona's tough 2010 immigration law, upholding its most hotly debated provision but blocking others on the grounds that they interfered with the federal government's role in setting immigration policy.

The court unanimously sustained the law's centerpiece, the one critics have called its 'show me your papers' provision, though they left the door open to further challenges. The provision requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally.

The justices parted ways on three other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that would have subjected illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for activities like seeking work.

The ruling is likely to set the ground rules for the immigration debate, with supporters of the Arizona law pushing for 'show me your papers' provisions in more states and opponents trying to overturn criminal sanctions for illegal immigrants."

New York Times Adam Liptak, "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece," www.nytimes.com, June 25, 2012

"Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark 'sanctuary state' legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which takes effect in January, has been hailed as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state. Weeks before Brown's signature made it law, it was met with swift denunciations from Trump administration officials and became the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws...

The new law will largely prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using either personnel or funds to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents unless those individuals have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crimes outlined in a 2013 state law.

Federal immigration authorities will still be able to work with state corrections officials - a key concession Brown had demanded - and will be able to enter county jails to question immigrants. But the state attorney general's office will be required to publish guidelines and training recommendations to limit immigration agents' access to personal information. And all law enforcement agencies will have to produce annual reports on their participation in task forces that involve federal agencies, as well as on the people they transfer to immigration authorities.

The new law doesn't specify what happens if local law enforcement agencies don't comply with the new rules. But the attorney general has broad authority under the state Constitution to prosecute police and sheriff's agencies that don't comply."

Los Angeles Times Jazmine Ulloa, "California Becomes 'Sanctuary State' in Rebuke of Trump Immigration Policy," latimes.com, Oct. 5, 2017

"The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday [Feb. 27, 2018] that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail...

The Ninth Circuit had ruled that bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not the Constitution, though it said its reading was required to avoid constitutional difficulties...

The vote was 5 to 3, with the court's more conservative members in the majority. Justice Stephen G. Breyer summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling intense disagreement."

New York Times "No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants, Justices Rule," nytimes.com, Feb. 27, 2018

"President Trump acted lawfully in imposing limits on travel from several predominantly Muslim nations, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court's conservatives in the majority.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Mr. Trump had ample statutory authority to make national security judgments in the realm of immigration... He concluded that the proclamation [travel ban], viewed in isolation, was neutral and justified by national security concerns...

Even as it upheld the travel ban, the majority took a momentous step. It overruled Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 decision that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II...

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a searing dissent from the bench in which she accused the court's majority of upholding an 'openly discriminatory policy motivated by animus' to a religious minority... Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent.

In a second, milder dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, questioned whether the administration could be trusted to enforce what he called 'the proclamation's elaborate system of exemptions and waivers.'"

New York Times Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear, "Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban," nytimes.com, June 26, 2018

"A U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration was announced Friday [June 7, 2019] evening, and Trump backed off on his threat to impose additional tariffs on Mexico. Trump had threatened to impose additional on tariffs on the country if it did not take additional actions to curb migration to the U.S.-Mexico border. The proposed tariffs were set to take effect on Monday [June 10, 2019], beginning at a 5% tariff on all Mexican goods and gradually increasing to 25% by October.

As part of the agreement, Mexico will do two main things. First, Mexico will take 'unprecedented steps to increase [immigration] enforcement,' including by deploying the National Guard throughout the country and 'giving priority to its southern border,' where migrants from Central America typically enter the country. Second, Mexico will participate in an expanded implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as Remain in Mexico, which requires those seeking asylum in the United States to be returned to Mexico, where they will wait until a decision has been made on their case."

ThinkProgress Adrienne Masha Varkiani, "Trump Makes Big Claim about His Mexico Deal That Isn't Backed Up on Paper," thinkprogress.org, June 8, 2019

"In a little-noticed case [ Rehaif v. United States], the Supreme Court on Friday [June 21, 2019] held 7-2 that undocumented immigrants charged with possessing firearms must know their unlawful [immigration] status to be convicted of a crime...

The facts of the case are as follows: Hamid Rehaif came to Florida, flunked out of school, and overstayed his student visa. Then he went to a firing range and shot two guns. The federal government tried him for 'possessing firearms as an alien unlawfully in the United States,' which carries up to a 10-year sentence for those who 'knowingly' violate it...

Notably, this issue won't just apply to people who are currently charged. Typically, decisions like these also apply retroactively to people who are on direct appeal from their convictions. That means many people currently languishing in federal custody may have an opportunity to challenge their convictions... This case may not resonate solely at the federal level. Many states model their statutes on federal law, and may find themselves bound to follow the Supreme Court's interpretation where the language is identical."

Slate Magazine Andrew Fleishman, "The Supreme Court Just Showed a Way Forward on Criminal Justice Reform," slate.com, June 21, 2019

"California has become the first state to extend health care coverage to some undocumented young adults through its Medicaid program.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday [July 9, 2019] signed SB-104, which extends health care benefits to individuals 19 to 25 years of age, regardless of their immigration status... It is expected to cover some 90,000 low-income residents between the ages of 19 and 25 and to cost the state $98 million in its initial year. The coverage would take effect in 2020, according to the legislation.

The federal Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an undocumented immigrant who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law, according to the bill."

CNN (Cable News Network) Devan Cole and Sarah Moon, "California Gov Signs Health Care Bill Extending Coverage to Some Undocumented Residents," cnn.com, July 10, 2019

"A federal judge in Utah said Thursday that American Samoans are US citizens and should be issued new passports reflecting that.

'This court is not imposing 'citizenship by judicial fiat.' The action is required by the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed and applied by Supreme Court precedent,' wrote Judge Clark Waddoups in the US District Court for the District of Utah...

It's unclear whether Waddoups' order applies to American Samoans beyond Utah...

American Samoa has been a US territory since 1900. Those born in the other US territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Marianas -- all get citizenship at birth, but that was determined by statute in Congress. No such law exists for American Samoa.

American Samoans living in Utah brought the suit in 2018, arguing that being 'non-citizen nationals,' instead of US citizens closed the door to some employment opportunities and didn't allow them to vote, among other rights afforded to US citizens.

Their passports also include a disclaimer that reads: 'The bearer is a United States national and not a United States citizen.'"

Priscilla Alvarez, "Federal Judge Rules American Samoans Are US Citizens by Birth," cnn.com, Dec. 12, 2019

In Mar. 2020, in response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, the Trump administration changed some immigration rules, including:

Mar. 10: The Office of Refugee Resettlement temporarily stopped placing immigrant children in Washington state or California.

Mar. 13: Travel from China and Iran was restricted earlier in the year and 26 European countries were added to the list in March. Green card holders and immediate family members must face additional health screenings to enter the US.

Mar. 13: Social visitation to all ICE detention facilities was temporarily stopped.

Mar. 16: Travel restrictions were extended to include Ireland and the UK.

Mar. 17: A day after Guatemala closed its borders, an asylum agreement between the country and the US was suspended.

Mar. 17: ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) will reschedule in-person appointments for immigrants who are not in detention and recent arrivals will be required to check in at 60 days after arrival instead of 30.

Mar. 17: US Citizenship and Immigration Services suspended all in-person services, including naturalization ceremonies.

Mar. 18: ICE suspends deportation flights to China, Italy, and South Korea.

Mar. 18. Refugee admissions were paused after the International Organization for Migration, the organization that books flights, suspended resettlement travel.

Mar. 18: Nonessential travel between Canada and the US has been paused by mutual agreement.

Mar. 18: The DOJ (Department of Justice) closed more immigration courts and postponed all hearings for immigrants who are not in detention.

Mar. 18: ICE dialed back operations, focusing on undocumented immigrants who are "subject to mandatory detention based on criminal grounds."

Mar. 20: The US and Mexico announced a joint effort to restrict non-essential travel between the two countries.

Mar. 22: Trump announced undocumented immigrants could be tested for COVID-19 (coronavirus) without fear of arrest or deportation.

Priscilla Alvarez, "12 Changes to the US Immigration System during the Coronavirus Pandemic," cnn.com, Mar. 18, 2020

Brett Samuels, "Trumps Says Undocumented Immigrants Can Get Tested for Coronavirus without Fear of Deportation," thehill.com, Mar. 22, 2020

Brett Samuels, "US Announces Travel Restrictions with Mexico, Citing Coronavirus," thehill.com, Mar. 20, 2020

Guidance issued on Apr. 21, 2020 by the Education Department bars undocumented students from receiving federal COVID-19 stimulus aid. The aid is meant to pay for expenses including food, housing, and childcare due to the unavailability of college services because of COVID-19 (coronavirus) school closures. $6 billion in aid was distributed to colleges and universities for the institutions to grant to students.

Education Department Spokesperson Angela Morabito stated, "The CARES Act makes clear that this taxpayer funded relief fund should be targeted to U.S. citizens, which is consistently echoed throughout the law."

The CARES Act also provides $1,200 stimulus checks to American citizens earning up to $75,000 and an additional $500 per child. However, undocumented immigrants are excluded, even those in the process of obtaining legal status. And American citizens who are married to undocumented immigrants and file taxes jointly will not receive stimulus checks. Over one million Americans are estimated to not receive stimulus checks because they are married to an undocumented immigrant.

Tal Axelrod, "DeVos Blocks Undocumented College Students from Receiving Emergency Aid amid Pandemic," thehill.com, Apr. 21, 2020

Jennie Jarvie, "These U.S. Citizens Won't Get Coronavirus Stimulus Checks - Because Their Spouses Are Immigrants," latimes.com, Apr. 22, 2020

On Apr. 20, 2020, President Trump tweeted, "In light of the attack from the Invisible Enemy, as well as the need to protect the jobs of our GREAT American Citizens, I will be signing an Executive Order to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States!"

Trump signed the executive order on Apr. 22, 2020, officially suspending immigration for people who are outside the US, do not have an immigrant visa, and do not have official travel documents other than visas. The order is expected to prevent thousands from immigrating.

The executive order is in effect for 60 days, but may be renewed or modified before it expires.

Trump stated, "This order will ensure that unemployed Americans of all backgrounds will be first in line for jobs as our economy reopens."

Exceptions to the order include: healthcare workers; US military members, their spouses, and children; the spouses and minor children of US citizens; people entering for national security or law enforcement reasons; investor visas; and Iraqi and Afghan nationals who have worked for the federal government.

Priscilla Alvarez, "What Trump's New Executive Order on Immigration Covers," cnn.com, Apr. 23, 2020

Betsy Klein, Priscilla Alvarez, and Kevin Liptak, "Trump Claims He Will Temporarily Suspend Immigration into US due to Coronavirus Fears," cnn.com, Apr. 21, 2020

Barbara Sprunt, "READ: Trump Signs Proclamation Temporarily Suspending Immigration," npr.org, Apr. 22, 2020

Donald J. Trump Twitter.com, Apr. 20, 2020

Illegal border crossings from Canada to the United States increased from 558 people in 2016 to 1,586 people in 2019, according to data obtained by the Associated Press (AP) and published on May 7, 2020.

Though illegal immigration via the northern border has increased, the total is less than 1% of the illegal crossings at the US/Mexico border.

In 2016, 3.6% of people crossing the northern border illegally were Mexican. That percentage jumped to 28% in 2019. Romanians, including many ethnic Roma, Haitians, and Indians were among other nationalities crossing the border illegally.

Wilson Ring, "US Northern Border Illegal Crossings Rise; Many Are Mexicans," apnews.com, May 7, 2020

The Supreme Court declined to review United States v. California, No. 19-532. As a result, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, allowing California's sanctuary policy to remain in effect. The lower court ruling stated that the policy "may well frustrate the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts... [But] whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right."

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the lower court ruling, arguing that sanctuary policies conflicted with federal law and posed a public safety risk. The petition stated, "When officers are unable to arrest aliens - often criminal aliens - who are in removal proceedings or have been ordered removed from the United States, those aliens instead return to the community, where criminal aliens are disproportionately likely to commit crimes."

Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on California Sanctuary Law," nytimes.com, June 15, 2020

According to the Aug. 3, 2020 Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security will raise some immigration and naturalization fees beginning on Oct. 2, 2020. Online naturalization application fees will increase from $640 to $1,160. The US will join only three other countries (Australia, Fiji, and Iran) that charge a fee for asylum seekers with a $50 charge. A proposed $275 DACA renewal fee was scrapped and genealogy fees will be lowered.

Department of Homeland Security, "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements," federal register.gov, Aug. 3, 2020

Geneva Sands, "US to Raise Naturalization Application Fees by $500," cnn.com, July 31, 2020

[Editor's Note: Judge Jeffrey White, US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, blocked the fee increase on Sep. 30, 2020. He wrote, "Plaintiffs persuasively argue that the public interest would be served by enjoining or staying the effective date of the Final Rule because if it takes effect, it will prevent vulnerable and low-income applicants from applying for immigration benefits, will block access to humanitarian protections, and will expose those populations to further danger... Plaintiffs also cite comments and research that argue the public at large would be harmed if the Final Rule goes into effect because it will negatively impact tax revenues and would delay individuals seeking to naturalize from participating in essential civic activities like voting, service in public office, and jury service. Defendants do not counter those arguments."

Source: Priscilla Alvarez, "Federal Judge Blocks Attempt to Hike Naturalization Fees by 80%," cnn.com, Sep. 30, 2020]

Colorado and Florida voters passed Amendment 76 and Amendment 1 respectively to amend the state constitutions to include a citizenship requirement for voting. Both constitutions are expected to be amended to state that "only a citizen" who is 18 years of age or older may vote.

Ballotpedia, "Colorado Amendment 76, Citizenship Requirement for Voting Initiative (2020)," ballotpedia.org (accessed Nov. 4, 2020)

Ballotpedia, "Florida Amendment 1, Citizen Requirement for Voting Initiative (2020)," ballotpedia.org (accessed Nov. 4, 2020)

The citizenship test now requires applicants to answer 12 questions of 20 correctly, as opposed to six of 10. Applicants now must study a list of 128 potential questions, as opposed to 100 potential questions.

18 possible questions were removed (11 that had simple answers), and were replaced with more nuanced, complicated questions that could have subjective answers such as "Why did the United States enter the Vietnam War?" and "Supreme Court Justices serve for life. Why?"

Other questions' answers were revised. For example, the answer to "Who does a US Senator represent?" used to be "all people of the state." Now the correct answer for the test is "citizens in the state."

Critics say the test is now unnecessarily difficult, requires a higher level of English fluency, and accuse the administration of limiting citizenship for political reasons. President-elect Biden can reverse the changes when he takes office in 2021.

Gina Pollack, "The U.S. Citizenship Test Just Got Harder. Would You Pass?," laist.com, Dec. 2, 2020

Simon Romero and Miriam Jordan, "New U.S. Citizenship Test Is Longer and More Difficult," nytimes.com, Dec. 3, 2020

US District Court Judge Judge Nicholas Garaufis ordered the Trump administration to restore DACA to the terms "prior to the attempted rescission of September 2017," and to reinstate two-year permits.

As of July 2020, there are an estimated 300,000 people eligible for DACA who are waiting to apply, including 55,000 who have become of eligible age in the last three years.

Vanessa Romo, "Judge Orders Trump Administration to Restore DACA as It Existed under Obama," npr.org, Dec. 4, 2020

In an inauguration day memo (Jan. 20, 2021), the Department of Homeland Security was directed to halt most deportations for 100 days. The action is being taken "to ensure we have a fair and effective immigration enforcement system focused on protecting national security, border security, and public safety," according to a DHS press release. The moratorium excludes those suspected of terrorism or espionage, those whose deportation is needed to protect national security, those who have crossed the border after Nov. 1, 2020, and those who have been convicted of an aggravated felony and pose a threat to public safety.

Priscilla Alvarez, "DHS Pauses Some Deportations for 100 days," cnn.com, Jan. 20, 2021

David Pekoske, "Review of and Interim Revision to Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Policies and Priorities," dhs.gov, Jan. 20, 2021

The Biden administration ended Trump's zero tolerance immigration policy. The policy required the prosecution of all adults crossing the southern border illegally, which resulted in children being held separately from their parents in detention centers.

Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson stated the policy "was inconsistent with the Department's longstanding principle that we exercise judgment and make individualized assessments in criminal cases. Today's action restores to prosecutors their traditional discretion to make charging decisions based on a careful review of the particular facts and circumstances of individual immigration cases."

Jaclyn Diaz, "Justice Department Rescinds Trump's 'Zero Tolerance' Immigration Policy," npr.org, Jan. 27, 2021

- Federal Judge Rules DACA Illegal

On July 16, 2021, US District Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas ruled DACA was illegal and put a hold on all new applications. Existing enrollees were allowed to remain in the program while the ruling allowed time for the government to consider changes to the program and continue litigation. President Biden has said the federal government will appeal the ruling, which is at odds with a Dec. 2020 federal ruling that required the federal government to process new applications.

Priscilla Alvarez and Tierney Sneed, "What to Know about DACA Being Ruled Illegal," cnn.com, July 17, 2021

The policy, called Title 42 and used to turn away about 100,000 migrants at the southern border, will remain in place during the pandemic.

In the announcement of the extension, the CDC stated: "introduction of such noncitizens, regardless of their country of origin, migrating through Canada and Mexico into the United States creates a serious danger of the introduction of COVID-19 into the United States."

The ACLU will move forward with a lawsuit against the policy. ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt stated: "The administration made repeated public statements that it just needed some time to build back the asylum system the Trump administration depleted. We gave them seven months. Time is up."

Joseph Choi, "Biden Administration to Keep Trump-Era Rule of Turning away Migrants during Pandemic," thehill.com, Aug. 2, 2021

Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020, saw the highest number of illegal border crossings since at least 1960, when the government began tracking the crossings.

Most of those apprehended (1.1 million, or 64% of the total) were individuals. Children traveling without parents of guardians, nearly 147,000, arrived in the largest numbers since 2008 when the government began tracking unaccompanied kids. The number of migrant families dropped about 48,000 from the last surge in 2019.

Though people from Mexico represented the largest portion of migrants, agents detained people from more than 160 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Eileen Sullivan and Miriam Jordan, "Illegal Border Crossings, Driven by Pandemic and Natural Disasters, Soar to Record High," nytimes.com, Oct. 22, 2021

Other sites are welcome to link to this page, but not to reproduce or repurpose our copyrighted content. Please see our reprinting policy for details on how to request permission to reprint ProCon.org content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historical Timeline - Immigration - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Other sites are welcome to link to this page, but not to reproduce or repurpose our copyrighted content. Please see our reprinting policy for details on how to request permission to reprint ProCon.org content. "[T]he settlement on the James River in 1607 marked the beginning of a nation--a nation that was certainly English in its foundation, whatever may be said of the superstructure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I first read about Bald Knob, Arkansas, in 2010, after thousands of poisoned blackbirds dropped dead from the sky in nearby Beebe. On first look, Bald Knob has an unsettling aesthetic: a sparsely populated town, a bygone agricultural zone with toppled silos, old trailers, taxidermy businesses, boarded-up shops and a Waffle House. It's a narrative cliche to present a rural place below the Mason-Dixon line this way, yet the scenery fits the bill.

I've lived in places like these, where a casual observer sees a weathered town and locals just see home. I proceed with caution anyway. I'm also unsettled by news reports of armed white nationalists marching at the capitol building in nearby Little Rock. I know this is how a lot of people experience the rural south - sorting through stereotypes and history as they go, wondering how much of the old south is present in the new.

The 12,900-acre Bald Knob Refuge, which sits about 60 miles north-east of Little Rock, is a blend of both the old and new south. It's a former rice farm that has grown rice and soybeans in order to provide much-needed habitat and fuel for migratory waterfowl like pintail ducks and snow geese since 1993.

A half-mile into the refuge, the truck ahead of me spooks an unfathomable cloud of waterfowl. Hundreds of thousandsof ducks rise from the wetlands, calling and circling. It's breathtaking to witness. Later, a huge flock of lesser snow geese passes above me. My heart pounds; it's moving to hear so many wingbeats overhead, to see the formations of a thousand white birds in the blue sky.

Another truck comes by. The man rolls down his truck window and asks, "You OK?"

"Fine," I tell him, climbing down from the roof of my rental car, and showing him my camera. "Watching birds. You?" I ask even though I can see his rifle in the back.

"Out scouting hunting spots," he says, flashing a charming smile. "You can get a better view if you take the road 'round that way." He points me toward a new route, then takes off.

The relationship between hunters and conservation has always surprised me. Yet it's often imperative to the success of major initiatives in the south, thanks to the influence of the not-for-profit organization Ducks Unlimited, which has a worldwide membership of 700,000 and has helped conserve over 13m acres of habitat. There are more than 34 million sportsmen and women in the United States.

Sportsmen and traditional environmentalists aren't always mutually exclusive, or easy co-conspirators. But, there is a critical need for information to flow between those on the ground and those in policy. In order to address the urgent realities of climate change, traditional environmentalists must continue to find ways to communicate and partner with non-traditional audiences: hunters, big agriculture, fishermen, corporations and loggers.

I wanted to talk to people in the south who already work on these frontlines, and are able to build bridges between seemingly disparate audiences.

Charlie Phillips, clammer and entrepreneur, is one of those men who's lived several lives, as a fishmonger, horse trader and shrimper.

"I'm one of those rare Republicans that believe that if you don't take care of your environment, your environment can't take care of you," he says. Phillips, the owner of Sapelo Sea Farms in Georgia, makes his living growing clams, so water quality is crucial to him, which is why he serves on boards and tries to help scientists and fishermen find common ground.

He's frank about climate change and how it's affecting his industry. He talks about the onset of "king tides", and fish stock moving north as waters warm. He was working on the back of a shrimp boat in 1968 when Hurricane Camille hit. "I saw the big ships washed up on shore," he tells me. "I've seen what big hurricanes can do. They're worse now. Things aren't what they used to be."

"Listen," he says. "Fishermen just want to be able to catch what they want to catch and be left alone."

He says working fishermen end up not trusting scientists because the scientific reports don't match up with what they witness firsthand on the water every day. Reports from scientists, he says, "feel three or four years behind what the fishermen see". He thinks it's crucial for fishermen and scientists to interact and learn more from each other. "We've gotten really good at throwing rocks at each other," he tells me. "But we need to give up on throwing rocks. It's not conducive to fixing problems."

Phillips is focused on what he cares most about: water. He's evangelical about it. "It affects everything," he says. "Wildlife, business, eco-tourism." He bought his father's restaurant, the Fish Dock, and uses the menus to educate customers about local water testing results. "I took poetic license," he tells me, laughing. "I don't use the word 'fecal', just 'water quality'."

The following day I talk with Dr Zakiya Leggett, a forester and professor at North Carolina State University whose research focuses on carbon sequestration and soil ecology. She talks about her empathy for freshmen, many of whom tell her at the beginning of her class through a pre-course survey that they don't believe in climate change. They tell her she shouldn't try to change their minds.

"We have to remember," she says, her tone compassionate, "especially if these students are coming fresh from home, that they haven't had time to form their own opinions." She adds, "Maybe I can't impress my 'opinions,' but I will give them the facts, like graphs of temperatures rising."

Leggett estimates that half of her students are coming from a rural environment. Born in Memphis, she recalls the difficult time she had adjusting when she went from the Tuskegee University to Duke University. She remembers struggling with elitism herself.

Now she mentors students through this vulnerable transition, and is able to forge connections with first-generation college students and conservative students, as well as students of color - all groups who might otherwise struggle to join conversations about the scientific realities of climate change.

Dr Todd Merendino, the manager of conservation programs in the Ducks Unlimited Texas field office, negotiates strategic partnerships with wildlife state agencies, agricultural producers, hunters, biologists, private landowners, petrochemical companies and the oil industry. A hunter and fisherman, he has a practical, outcomes-focused approach to his work.

"Our mission is waterfowl and habitats," he says. "I look for symbiotic relationships. Common ground. Common goals."

He speaks with corporations about responsible growth and convinces them that "wetlands and marshes are your insurance policy against flooding". He ticks off the nature of their conversations: flood storage capacity, coastal restoration projects, storm surge abatement, initiatives that keep the marsh healthy.

Ducks Unlimited recently completed a beneficial dredge use project near Port Arthur, Texas, which will move 2m cubic yards of dredge material to restore approximately 1,300 acres of the Salt Bayou Marsh watershed, an important migratory bird flyway recently degraded by hurricane damage. It's generally more expensive to utilize dredge material in this manner, he says, but smarter to move it to a place where it serves a purpose.

Merendino's work has large-scale outcomes, and with that objective in mind he welcomes chances to partner with corporations and big agriculture. "If the rice industry went away," he points out, "the amount of waterfowl habitat loss would be insurmountable, impossible to overcome."

After seeing the beauty and importance of the Bald Knob Refuge, the scale, necessity and complexity of this work impresses me.

It's easy to be an armchair activist in 2019, or make condescending online comments about the state of climate change activism in the south. But it's much more difficult to swim against the ideological current, or to operate between two exasperating worlds in a hands-on way, in search of real impact.

There is certainly more opportunity for cooperation and partnership, and places where more traditional environmentalists like me could find common ground with a hunter in Arkansas or a fisherman in Georgia, so that we could, quite frankly, save what we both love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progressives should think twice about who their allies are. Conservatives, especially the hunters among them, can be environmentalists too

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wisconsin Drone Regulations

Federal Drone Laws in Wisconsin

These are drone laws that apply to every state in the U.S., including Wisconsin, and were created by the federal government.

To fly a drone as a commercial pilot in the state of Wisconsin (i.e. for work / business purposes) you are required to follow the requirements of the FAA's Part 107 Small UAS Rule (Part 107), which includes passing the FAA's Aeronautical Knowledge Test to obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate.

To fly a drone as a hobbyist in the state of Wisconsin (i.e. for fun / pleasure) you are required to register your drone with the FAA and follow the FAA's Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

To fly a drone as a government employee in the state of Wisconsin (i.e., for a police or fire department) you may either operate under the FAA's Part 107 rule or obtain a federal Certificate of Authorization (COA).
Note: The content on this page is meant for informational purposes only, and is not meant to take the place of legal counsel.
State Drone Laws in Wisconsin

These are drone laws that apply to the entire state of Wisconsin, and were created by the Wisconsin Legislature.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Wisconsin Legislature, Wisconsin has two state-wide laws concerning the use of drones in the state.

This law prohibits using a drone to interfere with hunting, fishing or trapping.

This law prohibits the operation of UAS over correctional facilities.

All drone pilots operating commercially in the state of Wisconsin are subject to the FAA's Part 107 rules. Learn more about the FAA's certification process to obtain a commercial drone license in this free guide.
Know something we don't about drone laws in Wisconsin? Send us an email at support[at]uavcoach[dot]com. We do our best to keep this list up-to-date, but the reality is that given the pace of the small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) industry and how municipal governments are responding, drone regulations in Wisconsin can change throughout the year, and changes can be hard to track. If we missed something, please reach out to let us know.

Why fly a drone in Wisconsin? To get great shots like these!

Local Drone Laws in Wisconsin

These are drone laws that apply only to certain regions, cities, or counties within the state of Wisconsin, and were created by various authorities within the state.
Town of Greenfield-Municipal Ordinance // 2017
No person shall launch or land a drone outside of their visual line of sight; within one-hundred (100) feet of any person except the operator and assistant operator; within five hundred (500) feet of any festival, event, picnic, protest or public assembly of more than one-hundred (100) people; in a manner so as to endanger the safety of any person or property; within five hundred (500) feet of any emergency vehicle which is operating its emergency lights or siren, to any active police, fire or emergency response incident, to schools that are in session, and jails.
City of Hudson-Municipal Ordinance // 2017
The Hudson Common Council has approved an ordinance regulating unlawful use of drones. The ordinance prevents the use of a drone with the intent to photograph, record or observe someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like in their backyard or their residence, and imposes a fine of $200 for violations. Though State of Wisconsin already regulates use of drones in this manner, the city ordinance makes it easier for local law enforcement to enforce.
City of Chetek-Municipal Law // 2016
Altitude limitations on drone flights near Chetek Municipal Airport.
Outagamie County-Municipal Law // 2016
Drones may not be operated on airport grounds.
City of Green Bay-Municipal Law // 2013
Cannot fly below 400 feet within specified boundaries of special events, including Green Bay Packer games at Lambeau Field.

Flying a Drone in Wisconsin State Parks

Drones are not allowed in Wisconsin's state parks according to the following code:
Wis. Adm. Code ch. NR 45.04(1)(c)
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, and other flying related activities, including but not limited to, hang gliding, parasailing, hot air ballooning, land sailing, flying model airplanes, or sky diving, is prohibited, except where posted for their use, at state parks, state recreation areas, state natural areas, the Kettle Moraine and Point Beach state forests, and the Lower Wisconsin state riverway.

One exception to this is the Richard Bong Special Use Zone, an area where visitors may fly model airplanes, rockets, hang gliders and hot air balloons. Visitors must call ahead at least a week before their planned event for permission to use the area, which is often booked in advance for specific activities.

Take a Drone Flight Training Class in Wisconsin

UAV Coach offers in-person training in select cities in Wisconsin. The 2-hour, in-person training class provides hands-on flight time with an instructor, practice with intelligent flight modes, and education on what to do before, during, and after a flight mission to stay compliant and safe. During the class, you'll also get a chance to ask your questions about regulations, software, flight operations management, checklists and more.

Sign up for an in-person drone flight training class in Wisconsin.

Looking to get in more practice flying your drone? In addition to taking a drone flight training class with one of our trained instructors, you can also scout out safe and legal places to fly on your own using our guide to the Best Places to Fly a Drone in Milwaukee.

Want to get a feel for the kind of footage you could get flying a drone in Wisconsin? Here you go:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drone Laws in Wisconsin (2019) - UAV Coach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are drone laws that apply to every state in the U.S., including Wisconsin, and were created by the federal government. To fly a drone as a commercial pilot in the state of Wisconsin (i.e.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Reasons Why Parents Are Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children, And 4 Reasons Why They (Really) Shouldn't - World Innovation Summit for Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Maha El Akoum, Head of content, WISH The WHO has recently named vaccine hesitancy as one of the world's top 10 global health threats of 2019. Yes, 2019. Vaccine hesitancy [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash… Here’s How We Can Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution affects at least 700 marine species and some estimates suggest that at least 100 million marine mammals are killed each year by it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Path to Citizenship Legislation
"Path to citizenship" is a political phrase that usually refers to allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens via a special process. This process may include special requirements (such as fees, background checks, or additional waiting times) beyond those already in place for the naturalization of documented immigrants. Citizenship means the immigrants could receive government benefits (such as Social Security), would be eligible to vote, could bring family members into the U.S., and would not be deported for committing a crime.

The term "legalization" refers to a different process from a path to citizenship. Legalization means undocumented immigrants would be allowed to remain in the country legally but would not be allowed to become citizens or receive the same rights granted to US citizens. With legalization, the immigrants would be authorized to work in the U.S., have the ability to legally travel in and out of the country, and would not be subject to deportation for being in the country (though committing certain crimes could lead to deportation). They would not be eligible to vote or to receive government benefits or to bring family members into the country. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for years, paying taxes and contributing positively to the country, and therefore deserve a path to citizenship.

Undocumented immigrants "are our friends, neighbors, relatives, and colleagues - it is in America's interest to find a reasonable solution for this population. An earned pathway to citizenship, with restitution, allows them to fully assimilate and integrate into the United States without being unfair" to others, argued Laura Collins, Director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.

These undocumented immigrants and their families are already engrained in our country. According to a 2021 George W. Bush Presidential Center white paper, approximately two-thirds of them have been in the US for over a decade. 1.6 million were married to US citizens in 2018 and 675,000 were married to lawful permanent residents. 4.4 million American children citizens and another 100,000 lawful permanent resident or nonimmigrant children had at least one undocumented parent.

95.8% of undocumented immigrants were employed in 2018, contributing a total of $20.1 billion in federal income taxes and $11.8 billion in state and local taxes. In doing so, they created a $100 billion surplus in the Social Security program between 2004 and 2014 and a $35.1 billion surplus in the Medicare Trust Fund between 2000 and 2011. In other words, though they created these surpluses for the country through the automatic payroll taxes they pay they still were denied the benefits that other taxpayers receive.

According to the Center for American Progress, a five-year path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants would offer significant results after five years: 32.4% ($14,000) increase in annual wages for undocumented workers, 1.1% ($700) increase in all other workers' annual wages, 438,800 new jobs, and a $1.7 trillion increase in the total cumulative GDP (gross domestic product).

As economics professor Giovanni Peri and doctoral student Reem Zaiour of have argued, "Undocumented immigrants have long been essential to the nation's economic growth and prosperity. As the country battled the coronavirus pandemic and economic fallout over the past year, the role of undocumented immigrants... [ensured] the well-being and safety of all Americans... Nearly 3 in 4 undocumented individuals in the workforce-an estimated 5 million-are essential workers. At great risk to themselves and their families, these individuals keep food supply chains running; care for patients in hospitals and support medical systems; maintain the country's roads and buildings; provide critical care and services for children and the elderly; and educate future generations of Americans. All are critical members of the human infrastructure that powers the nation each day.... [L]egalization and a pathway to citizenship would provide the necessary relief and security for undocumented families and would bring a much-needed boost to the U.S. economy."
Read More

Pro 2

Many undocumented immigrants arrived as children, had no choice in breaking immigration laws, and know no other country.

As President Barack Obama explained, "These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they're friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents - sometimes even as infants - and often have no idea that they're undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver's license, or a college scholarship."

Called "Dreamers" for the failed DREAM Act legislation, there are between 1,159,000 and 3,600,000 undocumented immigrants in the United States who arrived as minors. 611,470 of those immigrants were registered for DACA as of Dec. 2021. While most Dreamers are from Mexico, they hail from at least 150 countries, including China, Poland, India, and Nigeria.

According to Mar. 2021 fwd.us estimates, 76% of Dreamers entered the United States in 2011 or earlier and 71% entered the U.S. before they turned 13 years old, with the average Dreamer arriving at age seven. Over 400,000 Dreamers are now a parent to a U.S. citizen child. 50% or more Dreamers are essential workers.

"Over the next 10 years, Dreamers who currently have DACA will contribute an estimated $433.4 billion to the GDP, $60 billion in fiscal impact, and $12.3 billion in taxes to Social Security and Medicare," estimated Laurence Benenson, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy of the National Immigration Forum.

DACA households paid $6.2 billion in federal and $3.3 billion in state and local taxes annually. They command $25.3 billion in spending power, own 68,000 homes with $760 million in mortgage payments, and pay $2.5 billion in rent yearly.

As education journalist Richard Barth concludes, "Dreamers are showing us every day how committed they are to this country. We need them to help us build a stronger, better future, together. That means creating a path for them to become citizens, as soon as we possibly can."
Read More

Pro 3

The United States is both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and its policies should reflect these facts.

"For too many years, the conversation has been predicated on a false dichotomy that says America can either honor its history and traditions as a nation of immigrants or live up to its ideals as a nation of laws by enforcing the current immigration system.... The fundamental problem with this debate is that America is, and has always been, both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.... Indeed, it is precisely because these two visions of the country are intertwined that America cannot be a nation of laws if those laws are antithetical to its history and ideals as a nation of immigrants," argues Tom Jawetz, Vice President of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress

Jawetz concludes, "because the legal immigration system for many years has provided inadequate opportunities for people looking to come to the United States or remain here, an extralegal system has evolved that consists of both unauthorized migration itself and formal and informal policies to not disrupt a generally mutually beneficial arrangement.... [R]estoring the rule of law requires extending a path to citizenship for the broader undocumented population."

American immigration law has not been updated to deal with the reality of modern illegal immigration. For example, almost half of the undocumented immigrants in the US did not circumvent the Southern border wall; they overstayed their legal visas.

Kalpana Peddibhotla, immigration lawyer, explains, "They entered with a specific purpose and fell out of status for a variety of reasons, only to realize there is no easy mechanism to correct their status violations.... They stay because they built their lives here, bought homes here, had children here."

The legal immigration system is far too restrictive, preventing those who want to immigrate legally from doing so because they'd have to "wait in line" for decades, immigrants without higher education are limited despite those immigrants fueling the US economy, and immigrants need an American sponsor to even apply, among a litany of other defects in the laws.

Current immigration laws are broken and do not reflect American values as a nation of immigrants. The laws have encouraged the arrival or overstay of undocumented immigrants without offering a path to reconcile their status with the law.
Read More

Con 1

Undocumented immigrants have broken the law that legal immigrants have followed and should not be rewarded for their crimes with the benefits of citizenship. Such actions incentivize lawbreaking.

If immigrants can skip the citizenship (or legalization) line by crossing the border without permission or over-staying legal entry, why would they bother with the appropriately lengthy legal process? Amnesty effectively incentivizes immigrants to break the law with a large reward.

Calling amnesty "the worst approach to illegal immigration," Matt O'Brien, Director of Research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says "amnesty for illegal aliens is a slippery slope. As any parent, school teacher or police officer knows, rewarding bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior. And much of our current immigration situation is directly attributable to the series of amnesties that began with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Rather than pushing the reset button, and allowing the United States to regain control of its borders, IRCA sent a clear message to would-be illegal aliens: 'If you violate our immigration laws long enough, you will be rewarded for your troubles and granted legal status.'"

Not only does a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants reward the immigrants who broke the law by entering the country illegally, but any amnesty rewards the coyotes and traffickers who extort people in return for smuggling them into the United States. Coyotes sell the idea of "permiso" (that the US grants citizenship to people within the country) to desperate, ill-informed Mexicans, as well as Central and South Americans, enticing them to spend outrageous sums and undertake an arduous and potentially fatal journey to be smuggled over the US border."

Amnesty also emboldens sex and labor traffickers, among other criminals, bringing more crime, drugs, and entrapped people into the United States. "The failed policies of this [Biden] administration encourage and facilitate Mexican drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations and other malevolent actors to engage in human trafficking and smuggling across our southwestern border," argues Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

Adds David Inserra, a policy analyst for Homeland Security and Cyber Security at the Heritage Foundation, "Beyond incentivizing additional illegal immigration, amnesty is unfair to all law-abiding Americans, legal immigrants, and those waiting to come legally to the U.S. Instead of jettisoning the rule of law with amnesty, Congress should ensure that immigration best serves the U.S.'s interests and that the immigration system is easier to use and navigate by those seeking legal entry. Ultimately, amnesty unfairly favors those who have broken U.S. laws at the expense of those who obey them."
Read More

Con 2

The United States needs to enforce immigration laws already in place.

The United States already has a path to citizenship. The country has laws that clearly state who may enter the country for what reasons and under what circumstances, and by what process they may become US citizens.

The United States also already has a penalty for people who break those laws. The penalty for "unlawful presence" is deportation and a three- or ten-year time bar for legal reentry. For repeat violations, immigrants may be permanently barred from the United States.

Though difficult to accurately count, the Department of Homeland Security estimated 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in the US in 2018. According to Migration Policy Institute estimates, there were about 11 million in 2019. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated 11.35 million in 2022.

Of those undocumented immigrants, only 320,000 migrants have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (with the potential for 588,335 others to gain that status depending upon Biden Administration classifications for their home countries). TPS is "a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing problems that make it difficult or unsafe for their nationals to be deported to those countries."

Those numbers do not include the 29,916 refugees or 46,508 people granted asylum either via pre-arrival application or asking for asylum at the border upon undocumented arrival in 2019.

Even with rough estimates, that leaves over 10 million undocumented immigrants without legal permission to be in the country. In what other situation does the United States look the other way about 10 million instances of broken laws?

As indicated by the 1986 IRCA, any kind of amnesty only deals with the immediate issue-the undocumented immigrants in the country at that time-and does nothing to resolve the ongoing illegal immigration problem.

The United States needs to enforce the laws on the books, send a clear no-entry message to other immigrants who may try to enter the country illegally in the future, and restore the country's image as one of laws.
Read More

Con 3

A path that stops short of citizenship would be a more appropriate and humane approach to undocumented immigrants.

Offering a legal status without the possibility of citizenship would address the reality of the American illegal immigration problem with a workable solution. More than 10 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States without TPS [Temporary Protected Status], a number that is impossible to locate and process for either deportation or other legal action.

As Dr. Ashley Nunes, a research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for Transportation and Logistics, argues, "A more pragmatic solution would be to offer a path to legalization that stops short of citizenship. That would meet the humanitarian imperative to keep families together. But it would also hold those who have violated immigration laws accountable for their actions.... Except for those who were born on American soil, citizenship is not a right. It's a privilege. A path short of citizenship sends a powerful message to America's legal-immigrant community, whose members have worked tirelessly to follow existing immigration guidelines. There is a rule of law, and citizenship is granted to those who follow it."

One option, suggested by the libertarian Cato Institute, is a tiered legalization process. Undocumented immigrants would have the ability to pay a fee to obtain a work permit that requires a fee-based renewal, allowing them to work and live in the US legally, travel abroad and return to the US, and otherwise legally participate in American society. They would not be able to vote, access welfare or other entitlements, or apply for citizenship. Most undocumented immigrants would choose this path instead of a more expensive path to citizenship based on data from the IRCA.

Another option is rolling legalization. Undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for more than 10 years could apply for legalization without a path to citizenship, and immigration enforcement would only deport more recently arrived immigrants. Law enforcement could then more efficiently target a smaller population while sending a message to potential immigrants that American laws will be enforced.

Immigration policies like these would promote legal immigration and confront the reality of a large undocumented population, while not rewarding illegal activity that could promote still more illegal crossings or overstays.
Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should the Government Allow a Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants? Explore both sides of the debate with in-depth, unbiased research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies. Please visit our Privacy Policy page for further details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This website saves small pieces of information (cookies) on your device to provide you with an improved user experience, and to allow us to analyse our website's traffic. You can disable the usage of cookies in your browser settings. If you continue to browse this website without changing your settings, you consent to the use of cookies and other similar technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Pros & Cons of Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles | Ohio University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curious about UAVs? Explore the pros and cons of drones and their many uses, and discover how drone technology can impact society today and in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti Vaxxers: Understanding Opposition to Vaccines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the fact that vaccines can prevent the spread of highly infectious (and lethal) diseases, the number of people refusing vaccines has increased.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest threats to ocean health worldwide. But, there are many solutions to plastic pollution that you can participate in today. This article covers some of the basic facts about ocean plastic pollution and provides several specific plastic pollution solutions that everyone can take part in.

The Ocean Plastic Pollution Problem

With skyrocketing plastic production, low levels of recycling, and poor waste management, between 4 and 12 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year-enough to cover every foot of coastline on the planet! And that amount is projected to triple in the next 20 years. Let that sink in for a moment.

In the ocean, plastic pollution impacts sea turtles, whales, seabirds, fish, coral reefs, and countless other marine species and habitats. In fact, scientists estimate that more than half of the world's sea turtles and nearly every seabird on Earth have eaten plastic in their lifetimes. Plastic pollution also mars otherwise beautiful beaches, coastlines, and snorkel and dive sites worldwide, even in remote areas such as Midway Atoll.

One of the reasons that plastic pollution is such a problem is that it doesn't go away: "plastics are forever." Instead, plastic debris simply breaks down into ever-smaller particles, known as microplastics, whose environmental impacts are still being determined.

Plastic Pollution Solutions: 7 Things You Can Do Today

Everyone can do something to help solve the plastic pollution problem, and millions of people worldwide are already taking action to reduce their plastic use. Here are seven ways you can make a difference, starting today.

1. Reduce Your Use of Single-Use Plastics

Wherever you live, the easiest and most direct way that you can get started is by reducing your own use of single-use plastics. Single-use plastics include plastic bags, water bottles, straws, cups, utensils, dry cleaning bags, take-out containers, and any other plastic items that are used once and then discarded.

The best way to do this is by a) refusing any single-use plastics that you do not need (e.g. straws, plastic bags, takeout utensils, takeout containers), and b) purchasing, and carrying with you, reusable versions of those products, including reusable grocery bags, produce bags, bottles, utensils, coffee cups, and dry cleaning garment bags. And when you refuse single-use plastic items, help businesses by letting them know that you would like them to offer alternatives.

2. Support Legislation to Curb Plastic Production and Waste

As important as it is to change our individual behaviors, such changes alone are insufficient to stop ocean plastic pollution. We also need legislation that reduces plastic production, improves waste management, and makes plastic producers responsible for the waste they generate. There are a variety of ways that you can support local, national, and international legislation that provide critical solutions to reduce plastic pollution. One such effort in the United States is the 2021 Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, a comprehensive federal bill that aims to address the plastic pollution crisis, and there are a number of state level initiatives to introduce extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation that makes plastic producers and distributors responsible for their products and packaging at the end of life.

At the international level, hundreds of organizations and businesses successfully worked together with United Nations member states to enact a global plastics treaty, signed by 175 member states, that will set global rules and regulations to reduce plastic pollution. And legislation that limits, taxes, or bans unnecessary single use plastic items, such as plastic bags, takeout containers, and bottles, has been successfully enacted in many places globally, and you can support the adoption of such policies in your community too. Here is a comprehensive resource and toolkit on legislative approaches to limiting plastic bags, foodware, microplastics, and more.

3. Recycle Properly

This should go without saying, but when you use single-use (and other) plastics that can be recycled, always be sure to recycle them. At present, just 9% of plastic is recycled worldwide. Recycling helps keep plastics out of the ocean and reduces the amount of "new" plastic in circulation. If you need help finding a place to recycle plastic waste near you, check Earth911's recycling directory. It's also important to check with your local recycling center about the types of plastic they accept.

4. Participate In (or Organize) a Beach or River Cleanup

Help remove plastics from the ocean and prevent them from getting there in the first place by participating in, or organizing a cleanup of your local beach or waterway. This is one of the most direct and rewarding ways to fight ocean plastic pollution. You can simply go to the beach or waterway and collect plastic waste on your own or with friends or family, or you can join a local organization's cleanup or an international event like our Global Ocean Cleanup or the International Coastal Cleanup.

Take Our 7-Day Fight Plastic Waste Challenge

Join the global movement to fight plastic waste with our 7-day challenge. With just a few minutes a day, you'll be on your way to reducing ocean plastic pollution from home.
Take the Challenge

5. Avoid Products Containing Microbeads

Tiny plastic particles, called " microbeads," have become a growing source of ocean plastic pollution in recent years. Microbeads are found in some face scrubs, toothpastes, and bodywashes, and they readily enter our oceans and waterways through our sewer systems, and affect hundreds of marine species. Avoid products containing plastic microbeads by looking for "polythelene" and "polypropylene" on the ingredient labels of your cosmetic products (find a list of products containing microbeads here).

6. Spread the Word

Stay informed on issues related to plastic pollution and help make others aware of the problem. Tell your friends and family about how they can be part of the solution, or host a viewing party for one of the many plastic pollution focused documentaries, like A Plastic Ocean, Garbage Island: An Ocean Full of Plastic, Bag It, Addicted to Plastic, Plasticized, or Garbage Island.

7. Support Organizations Addressing Plastic Pollution

There are many non-profit organizations working to reduce and eliminate ocean plastic pollution in a variety of different ways, including Oceanic Society, Plastic Pollution Coalition, 5 Gyres, Algalita, Plastic Soup Foundation, and others. These organizations rely on donations from people like you to continue their important work. Even small donations can make a big difference!

These seven ideas only scratch the surface for ways you can help address the growing problem of plastic pollution in the oceans. The important thing is that we all do something, no matter how small. For more ideas and resources, sign up to join our Blue Habits community of people worldwide committed to joyful daily actions that improve ocean health.

Reduce Plastic Pollution From Home with Our 7-Day Challenge

Join the global movement to fight plastic waste by participating in our 7-day challenge.
Take the Challenge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways to Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest threats to ocean health worldwide. But, there are many solutions to plastic pollution that you can participate in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BalancedPolitics.org - Legal Immigration (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free balanced, two-sided discussion of controversial social and policital issues (pros and cons)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Music and Podcasts, Free and On-Demand | Pandora

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Play the songs, albums, playlists and podcasts you love on the all-new Pandora. Sign up for a subscription plan to stream ad-free and on-demand. Listen on your mobile phone, desktop, TV, smart speakers or in the car.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are remotely-controlled aircraft which may be armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions. Since the World Trade Center attacks on Sep. 11, 2001 and the subsequent " War on Terror," the United States has used thousands of drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.

Proponents state that drones strikes help prevent "boots on the ground" combat and makes America safer, that the strikes are legal under American and international law, and that they are carried out with the support of Americans and foreign governments

Opponents state that drone strikes kill civilians, creating more terrorists than they kill and sowing animosity in foreign countries, that the strikes are extrajudicial and illegal, and create a dangerous disconnect between the horrors of war and soldiers carrying out the strikes.

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Drone strikes make the United States safer by remotely decimating terrorist networks across the world.

Drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed between 7,665 and 14,247 militants and alleged militants, including high-level commanders implicated in organizing plots against the United States.

According to President Obama, "[d]ozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives."
Read More

Pro 2

Drone strikes are legal under American and international law.

Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation's inherent right to self-defense when it has been attacked. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has said that Article 51 applies if the targeted state agrees to the use of force in its territory, or the targeted group operating within its territory was responsible for an act of aggression against the targeting state where the host state is unwilling or unable to control the threat themselves. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have officially consented to US drone strikes within their countries because they are unable to control terrorist groups within their own borders.

Harold Hongju Koh, JD, Professor of International Law at Yale University and former US State Department Legal Adviser explained, "a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.," and a country may target individuals in foreign countries if they are directly participating in hostilities or posing an imminent threat that only lethal force can prevent.

The United States also has the right under international law to "anticipatory self-defense," which gives the right to use force against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defense is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation."
Read More

Pro 3

Americans support drone strikes.

According to a July 18, 2013 survey by Pew Research, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Support spanned the political divide, including Republicans (69%), independents (60%), and Democrats (59%).

A Mar. 20, 2013 poll by the Gallup organization found that 65% of Americans believed the US government should "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists" and 74% of Americans who "very" or "somewhat" closely follow news stories about drones supported the attacks.

A May 28, 2013 Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll found that 57% of Americans supported drone strikes targeting "al Qaeda targets and other terrorists in foreign countries."
Read More

Pro 4

Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of local governments, and make those countries safer.

US drone strikes help countries fight terrorist threats to their own domestic peace and stability, including al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, al-Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Maghreb in Algeria and Mali.

On Aug. 21, 2020, for example, acting in cooperation with the Somali National Army, a US drone strike killed a "high-ranking" al-Shabab bomb and IED maker.

Yemen's President, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, has openly praised drone strikes in his country, stating that the "electronic brain's precision is unmatched by the human brain."

In a 2008 State Department cable made public by Wikileaks, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani asked US officials for more drone strikes, and in Apr. 2013 former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf acknowledged to CNN that his government had secretly signed off on US drone strikes. In Pakistan, where the vast majority of drone strikes are carried out, drones contributed to a major decrease in violence. The 41 suicide attacks in Pakistan in 2011 were down from a record high of 87 in 2009, which coincided with an over ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes.

After the Jan. 2020 strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Soleimani in Iran, President Donald Trump stated, "Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years... Just recently, Soleimani led the brutal repression of protestors in Iran, where more than a thousand innocent civilians were tortured and killed by their own government... The future belongs to the people of Iran - those who seek peaceful coexistence and cooperation - not the terrorist warlords who plunder their nation to finance bloodshed abroad."
Read More

Pro 5

Drones limit the scope, scale, and casualties of military action, keeping the US military and civilians in other countries safer.

Drones also have lower civilian casualties than "boots on the ground" missions. Between 1,193 and 2,654 civilians have died in drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, or between 7% and 15% of the those killed by drones . By contrast, about 335,000 total civilians have been killed violently in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syrian, and Yemen. [139] The traditional weapons of war - bombs, shells, mines, mortars - cause more collateral (unintended) damage to people and property than drones, whose accuracy and technical precision mostly limit casualties to combatants and intended targets. Civilian deaths in World War II are estimated at 40 to 67% of total war deaths. In the Korean, Vietnam, and Balkan Wars, civilian deaths accounted for approximately 70%, 31%, and 45% of deaths respectively.
Read More

Con 1

Drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets and create more terrorists.
Read More

Con 2

Drone strikes terrorize and kill civilians.

Clive Stafford Smith, Director of Reprieve, a human rights organization, stated, "an entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups."

According to Micah Zenko, PhD, political scientist, and Amelia May Wolf, research associate in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, "drones are far less precise than airstrikes conducted by piloted aircraft, which themselves also conduct 'precision strikes.' Drones result in far more civilian fatalities per each bomb dropped."
Read More

Con 3

Secretive drone strikes amount to extrajudicial assassination and violate human rights.

Drone strikes are secretive, lack sufficient legal oversight, and prevent citizens from holding their leaders accountable. Drone strikes often skip steps taken by boots on the ground approaches. The Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School explains, "While interrogation and detention, as recent history shows all too well, carry their own risks of human rights abuses, these non-lethal approaches at least provide the opportunity for an assessment of whether targeted individuals in fact pose a threat to U.S. interests-an opportunity taken off the table by drone strikes."

The United States frequently calls drone strikes "targeted killings," a term that does not have a definition in international law. Charli Carpenter, PhD, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explained, "The term was originally coined by a human rights organization to distinguish El Salvador death squads' assassination of individuals from the squads' wider indiscriminate killings of civilians. Both acts, Americas Watch correctly argued, violated human rights standards as well as the international laws surrounding war." Thus, "targeted killings" are, Carpenter explained, "the extrajudicial execution of nonstate political adversaries," or political assassination, which is "taboo in war," banned by the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1998 Rome Statute, and is a "violation of the human right to life enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

UN Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions Agnès Callamard tweeted in response to a Jan. 2020 drone strike, "The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu mahdi al muhandi most likely violate international law incl human rights law. Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings."

The strikes are expecially problematic outside of declared war, when even terrorists must be arrested, tried, and convicted of a capital crime before being killed.
Read More

Con 4

Drone strikes violate the sovereignty of other countries and are extremely unpopular in the affected countries.

Strikes are often carried out without the permission and against the objection of the target countries. Iraq Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halboosi called the Jan. 2020 strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani "a flagrant violation of sovereignty, and a violation of international conventions... "Any security and military operation on Iraqi territory must have the approval of the government."

General Stanley McChrystal, former leader of the US military in Afghanistan, says that the "resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."

On Dec. 16, 2013, Yemen's parliament passed a motion calling for the United States to end its drone program in the country after a wedding convoy of 11 to 15 people were killed by a US drone strike.
Read More

Con 5

Drone strikes allow an emotional disconnect from the horrors of war and inflict psychological stress on drone operators.

According to D. Keith Shurtleff, an Army chaplain and the ethics instructor for the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, stated, "as war becomes safer and easier, as soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide." Without this deterrent, it becomes easier for soldiers to kill via a process called "doubling," in which "[o]therwise nice and normal people create psychic doubles that carry out sometimes terrible acts their normal identity never would."

Drone pilot Colonel D. Scott Brenton, in a July 29, 2012 interview with the New York Times, acknowledged the disconnect of what journalist Elisabeth Bumiller described as "fighting a telewar with a joystick and a throttle from his padded seat in American suburbia" thousands of miles away from the battlefield, then driving home to help with homework. "I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy," he said. "I have a duty, and I execute the duty... No one in my immediate environment is aware of anything that occurred."

A study from the Department of Neuropsychiatry at the US Air Force's School of Aerospace Medicine found that drone pilots, in addition to witnessing traumatic combat experiences, face several unique problems: lack of a clear demarcation between combat and personal/family life; extremely long hours with monotonous work and low staffing; "existential conflict" brought on by the guilt and remorse over being an "aerial sniper"; and social isolation during work, which could diminish unit cohesion and increase susceptibility to PTSD.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. The first recorded use of attack drones occurred on July 15, 1849 when the Habsburg Austrian Empire launched 200 pilotless balloons armed with bombs against the revolution-minded citizens of Venice.

2. Between Nov. 1944 and Apr. 1945, Japan released more than 9,000 bomb-laden balloons across the Pacific, intending to cause forest fires and panic in the western United States in operation "Fu-Go." Because the US government, in concert with the American press, kept the balloons a secret, the Japanese believed the tactic ineffective and abandoned the project.

3. The first drone strike in Afghanistan, piloted by Air Force operators controlled by CIA analysts, happened on Oct. 7, 2001, a failed attempt to kill Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Mohammed Omar.

4. The first known killing by armed drones occurred in Nov. 2001, when a Predator killed Muhammad Atef, al Qaeda's military commander.

5. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there have been at least 14,040 confirmed strikes between Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2019. Between 8,858 and 16,901 people have been killed, including 910 to 2,200 civilians, and 283 to 454 civilians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drone Strikes Abroad - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say strikes make the US safer by decimating terrorist networks. Opponents say strikes mostly kill low-value targets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Pharma and Big Profits: The Multibillion Dollar Vaccine Market - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First published on January 27, 2016. Of relevance to an understanding of the Covid Vaccine Initiative The business of vaccines is soon to become a major source of profits for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations. A press release (Business Wire, January 21st 2016) published by marketwatch.…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Facts on Plastic Bag Bans

In 2020, statewide plastic bag laws became active in Maine, New York, Oregon and Vermont, with Connecticut and Delaware joining in 2021. This comes in response to California passing legislation to ban plastic bags in November of 2016. With Hawaii - which has a de facto ban due to all of the state's counties imposing restrictions - added, that brings the total number of states with plastic bag banning laws to eight.

Across 23 states, over 200 counties and municipalities have their own bans in place. Additionally, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted plastic bag bans.

If over 22% of the country's population has adopted a bag-free lifestyle, should other states follow suit? To answer that question, we'll examine the arguments on both sides of the debate.

What Are the Cons of Plastic Bags?

1. Plastic Bags Contaminate Food Sources

Those in favor of banning plastic bags argue that it would be one of the most effective ways to reduce the volume of plastic waste in the ocean. This would have major health benefits for both sea life and humans.

According to EcoWatch, 10 metric tons of plastic fragments, including grocery bags, wash out to sea in the Los Angeles area every day. Once in the ocean, those fragments break down into smaller, nearly microscopic pieces that are consumed by sea life - an estimated 12,000-24,000 tons per year - contaminating the food chain from the bottom up.

"I think it goes without saying that plastics (bags included) are an enormous problem in terms of litter, mostly because plastic trash is ubiquitous, and plastic does not decay in a lifetime," said Elizabeth Mullen Matteson, founder of The Litter Project. "The amount of plastic litter just grows and grows, especially in our oceans. This is terribly dangerous to the eco systems that provide food to billions of people."

A study conducted in 2015 by researchers at UC Davis found that one-quarter of fish sold at California markets contained whole or fibrous plastic in their stomachs. Further research is needed to confirm whether the chemicals found in plastic can transfer to the parts of fish most frequently eaten by people.

2. Plastic Bags Take Up To 1,000 Years to Decompose

Unlike reusable fabric bags, plastic bags can take lifetimes to biodegrade. Over that time, their light weight allows them to be carried long distances, causing environmental havoc along the way.

"Exactly what happens to a plastic bag when it is littered depends very much on where it enters the environment and the mechanisms that cause it to travel," said Patrick Chandler, Education Consultant for The Washed Ashore Project. "On a rainy day in Portland, the bag could be washed into a drainage pipe that would lead it to the Columbia River and into the ocean. On a windy day in Arizona, the bag might get stuck on a cactus where it is held until it photodegrades."

But no matter where a bag ends up, Chandler explains that it can cause long-term harm to the surrounding ecosystem. "The bag will exist in the environment for years because plastic doesn't biodegrade. Exactly how many years and how that plays out again depends on where it starts and where it ends up."

3. Plastic Bags Are Hard to Recycle

"One reason why plastic bags have become such an ecological burden is our way of dealing with them at the end of their lifetime," said Sara Slavikova, co-founder of Greentumble. "We keep producing more and more, but did not implement efficient recycling programs - particularly because their recycling is difficult."

Further, the U.S. recycled less than 9% of plastic material in 2018. With roughly 102.1 billion plastic bags used yearly by Americans, that means 92.81 billion plastic bags are not recycled per year.

Plastic bags can't be sorted from other materials by the machinery at recycling facilities. They often get stuck in conveyor belts, jam equipment and delay the entire sorting system, making it impractical for plastic bags to be collected with curbside recycling.

As a result, some grocery stores provide collection bins to properly recycle plastic bags, but it's easy for shoppers to forget to bring them back.

What Are the Pros of Plastic Bags?

1. Plastic Bag Production Is More Environmentally Friendly

Reusable alternatives are a major focus of the plastic ban debate. But how eco-friendly are fabric shopping bags in comparison to plastic bags?

A 2018 study by the Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark showed that the manufacturing and disposal of plastic bags had a lower environmental impact than six alternate bags offered as a replacement at most supermarkets. It stated that each alternate material would have to be reused between 35 and 7,100 times to negate the pollution of its production and to equal that of a plastic bag that has only been used one time.

Environmental Footprint Comparison: Alternate Bags vs. Plastic Bags

Reusable Bag Material

Number of Uses

A related argument for keeping plastic bags in checkout lanes involves their convenience. For retailers, they are cheap, easy to store, and simple to open and fill. Many consumers reuse plastic bags in various ways, such as lining their bathroom garbage cans.

2. The Plastic Industry Employs Nearly 1 Million Americans

Convenience, however, is not the only argument against banning plastic bags. As it turns out, the companies that manufacture the bags themselves, such as Formosa Plastics and Novolex, employ thousands of people in plants and factories across the U.S. Every new plastic bag ban, critics argue, raises the risk of widespread layoffs.

In 2017, the plastic products industry employed 989,000 nationwide, making it the eighth largest industry in the United States. Of those employees, 30,900 are directly involved in the making of plastic bags.

On top of that, some stores in areas with anti-plastic bag ordinances have noticed a decrease in sales - shoppers are limited to purchasing only what will fit inside their reusable bags or simply choose to shop at a neighboring town that still uses plastic bags. As a result, some stores are unable to hire more people.

3. Plastic Bags Reduce Food Safety Risks

While fabric bags are great for transporting dry foods, they can be quick to absorb messes, leading to undesirable odors and potential for bacteria growth. In fact, a joint study at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in California discovered the presence of coliform bacteria in 51% of the 84 reusable grocery bags tested, with E. coli present in 8%.

To avoid these inconveniences and reduce the risk of contamination, many shoppers request separate plastic bags for certain items at the checkout.

Sara Slavikova from Greentumble explains that "plastic bags and wrapping overall have become widely accepted. It is approved as a standard (hygienic) packaging material."

Check Dumpster Availability Near You

The State of Plastic Bag Bans Today

With eight states approving plastic bag laws - six of which have come since 2017 - the movement against plastic bags continues to gain support. However, with each ban approved comes opposition as other states have taken measures to keep plastic bags in stores.

Fifteen states - Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin - have laws that ban cities and counties from enacting their own plastic bag bans that are being enforced to varying degrees of success. The topic is also being discussed in Alabama and South Carolina.

Despite opposition, the movement to ban the bag is gaining momentum in legislatures across the country, with advocates citing the success of California's plastic bag law as a sign that other states can get rid of plastic bags without harming local economies or businesses. In fact, some of the states that have prohibited bag bans are considering repealing the laws.

But for now, most of us still have to answer that age-old question: "Will that be paper or plastic?"

Expert Contributors

Patrick Chandler

The Washed Ashore project was created by the Artula Institute to educate a global audience about plastic pollution in waterways and inspire change through art. The project continues to grow with four traveling exhibitions, Artist in Residency programs in Oregon as well as other ongoing creative projects.

What Do You Think?

Ready to join the plastic bag ban debate? We're listening. Head over to Twitter or Facebook, and use #dumpstersblog to join the conversation.

Need a Dumpster for Your Next Project?

©2023 Dumpsters.com All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

We serve homeowners, contractors and businesses by evaluating their disposal needs and coordinating waste removal services, including providing the necessary dumpster equipment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bag Ban in Your State: Yes or No?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic bags can contaminate food sources when improperly disposed, but will your food be exposed to bacteria without them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are the main arguments against immigration, my quick responses to them, and links to some of the most relevant evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jessica Biel is many things: actor, mom, wife to Justin Timberlake, consummate ab-shower, purveyor of the theory that being hotter than Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman has ruined her career. This week, however, the world became aware of another credential on Biel's resume: anti-vaccine activist.

In an Instagram post, prominent anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed that he had met with Biel at the California State Assembly to lobby against SB 276, a California bill that aims to limit medical exemptions for vaccines unless parents have the approval of a state public health officer. In response to the uproar, Biel denied being opposed to vaccination, writing in an Instagram post, "I am not against vaccinations - I support children getting vaccinations and I also support families having the right to make educated medical decisions for their children alongside their physicians."

But in a post on Jezebel, a legislative staffer in the California State Capitol who allegedly was present at the meeting between Biel and Kennedy said that Biel had said she did not adhere to a regular vaccine schedule for her child, due to her belief that vaccination was linked to a friend's child's illness, and that she had admitted to trying to find a doctor who would agree to delaying vaccines for her child. (This practice, "doctor shopping," is something that SB 276 is in large part attempting to curb.)

In truth, Biel's argument for families "having the right to make educated medical decisions for their children" is common among those skeptical of vaccines. (Many do not self-identify as anti-vaxxers, considering the term something of a slur, instead preferring to use such euphemistic terms such as "vaccine risk-aware.")

In response to such arguments, however, most public health experts cite the enormous body of research suggesting that mandatory vaccination is critical to maintaining herd immunity and preventing vulnerable members of the population from becoming sick with preventable child illnesses. Indeed, in the wake of the controversy over Biel's post, many argued that it was dangerous for prominent celebrities to adopt such positions, particularly in light of the measles outbreaks happening across the country due to declining vaccination rates.

In light of Biel's fall from (let's be honest, semi) A-list grace, here's a compendium of celebrities who have publicly endorsed similarly vaccine-critical views. While few of these individuals identify as anti-vaccine, they have either come out as not having vaccinated their children, are critical of mandatory vaccination or have endorsed such views, or have made dangerous and unproven claims about vaccines in general.

Kristin Cavallari: The reality TV star appeared on Fox News in 2014 and said that she had not vaccinated her son Camden. "Listen, to each their own," she said. "I understand both sides of it. I've ready too many books about autism and there's some scary statistics out there. It's our personal choice."

Alicia Silverstone: In her 2014 book, The Kind Mama: A Simple Guide to Supercharged Fertility, a Radiant Pregnancy, a Sweeter Birth, and a Healthier, More Beautiful Beginning, the Clueless actress (who has previously suggested that tampons cause infertility and that veganism can reduce the risk of miscarriage) was highly critical of vaccination, saying "there has not been a conclusive study of the negative effects of such a rigorous one-size-fits-all, shoot-'em-up schedule." (The Centers for Disease Control would disagree, saying numerous peer-reviewed studies have pointed to the efficacy and relative safety of vaccines.) "There is increasing anecdotal evidence from doctors who have gotten distressed phone calls from parents claiming their child was "never the same" after receiving a vaccine. And I personally have friends whose babies were drastically affected in this way," she wrote.

Jenny McCarthy: Possibly the most highly visible anti-vaxxer in Hollywood, McCarthy has a son who was diagnosed with autism when he was two-and-a-half and has been a vocal advocate for her belief that his diagnosis is attributable to the MMR vaccine. Like many others, she has disputed the label "anti-vaccine," telling PBS Frontline, "We're not an anti-vaccine movement. We're pro-safe-vaccine schedule."

Jim Carrey: Carrey, who dated McCarthy from 2005 to 2010, has also publicly come out against mandatory vaccination, writing in the Huffington Post in 2009: "In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it's been written." He has also blasted Gov. Jerry Brown, calling him a "fascist" in 2015 for signing a law mandating vaccines for all school-aged children regardless of their parents religious' beliefs.

Save our vaccines! Save our kids! Let the truth be known! https://t.co/zM9jupHmkF https://t.co/8zphbim3xV pic.twitter.com/24Ejz5XZNH

- Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) April 14, 2016

Greed trumps reason again as Gov Brown moves closer to signing vaccine law in Cali. Sorry kids. It's just business. ;^[

- Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) June 27, 2015

The famously contrarian standup comedian and TV host (who has also endorsed prominent figures in the AIDS denialism movement) is, unsurprisingly, similarly skeptical about mandatory vaccination. He tweeted in opposition to the swine flu shot at the peak of the epidemic in 2009, has featured prominent vaccine critic RFK Jr. on his show, and railed against mandated vaccination in an interview with former Sen. (and physician) Bill Frist, saying, "Why would you let [the government] be the ones to stick a disease into your arm? I would never get a swine flu vaccine, or any vaccine. I don't trust the government, especially with my health."

In an interview with the Winnipeg Sun in 2009, Maher clarified his stance on vaccines - kind of. "I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."

Rob Schneider: The former SNL and Deuce Bigalow star has made numerous public statements lobbying against mandatory vaccination. In 2012, he cited the widely debunked belief that vaccines are linked to autism in his opposition to a California bill requiring parents get a signature from a physician to opt out of their child receiving vaccinations. "The parents have to be the ones who make the decisions for what's best for our kids," he told a local news station at the time. "It can't be the government saying that." Schneider's views on vaccines are so widely known that in 2018, State Farm pulled an ad featuring Schneider in response to uproar from pro- science groups.

Lisa Bonet: Perhaps one of the few celebrities to speak out against mandatory vaccination, the former Cosby Show star and mom to Zoe Kravitz told The Donahue Show host Phil Donahue in 1990 that vaccines could potentially "introduce alien microorganisms into our children's blood," with such terrifying (and completely unconfirmed) potential long-term effects as "cancer, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, sudden infant death syndrome." (For what it's worth, her former husband Lenny Kravitz doesn't seem to share these views, partnering with UNICEF in 2013 to call for vaccination to bring an end to preventable child deaths.)

Toni Braxton: The "Unbreak My Heart" singer wrote in her 2014 memoir that her son Diezel receiving the MMR vaccine may have contributed to his developing autism. "Maybe it's just a coincidence that after my son's first MMR vaccine, I began to notice changes in him," she wrote. (Her book also claimed that his autism was God's punishment for her having previously gotten an abortion.)

Selma Blair: In 2015, the Cruel Intentions star lobbied against SB277, the California bill to remove personal belief exemptions. On Twitter, she said that while she had vaccinated her own child, "parental choice is our right. Most vaccinate. Let us choose."

I have. Parental choice is our right. Most vaccinate. Let us choose. https://t.co/2GmEK2C9u8

- Selma Blair (@SelmaBlair) June 29, 2015

Jenna Elfman: The actress, best known for the 1990s sitcom Dharma and Greg, was also a vocal opponent of SB277. "I'm not anti-vax," she wrote on Twitter in 2015. "Parents should vaccinate their children as much as they wish to in accordance with current law. It's THEIR RIGHT."

It is perhaps worth noting that much like Juliette Lewis and That 70s Show Danny Masterson, who also came out against the 2015 bill, Elfman is a Scientologist. (The Church of Scientology does not have a public stance on vaccines; earlier this spring, however, a Scientologist cruise ship was put under quarantine in the island of Curaçao due to a confirmed measles case onboard.)

I'm 100% proVaccine. No FUCKING way does the govt tell me what to do to my child. disgusting. NO #SB277 #CanPAN http://t.co/vwOZ2IQryp

- danny masterson (@dannymasterson) May 18, 2015

I'm not anti-vax. Parents should vaccinate their children as much as they wish to in accordance with current law. It's THEIR RIGHT. #SB277

- ⚡️JENNA ELFMAN⚡️ (@JennaElfman) May 14, 2015

I like my freedoms. I like my rights. Freedom of choice, voice,religion,thought,expression. But... https://t.co/vM4fUKW1Ik

- Juliette Lewis (@JulietteLewis) March 1, 2015

Charlie Sheen: Well, this one's not super surprising: the famously mercurial (get it? because vaccines?) actor reportedly got in an altercation in 2008 with his ex-wife Denise Richards over giving their daughters, Sam and Lola, their childhood immunizations. Sheen was apparently so opposed to his children receiving the shots that Sheen's attorney had to get involved.

Mayim Bialik: The Big Bang Theory star and natural parenting advocate has a complicated relationship with vaccines. While she has previously said her family is a " non-vaccinating" one and plugged books by anti-vaccine activist Dr. Bob Sears, among others, she appeared to walk back on her stance on vaccines in 2015, tweeting, "I'm not anti. My kids are vaccinated. So much anger and hysteria. I hope this clears things up." She then followed up with a post that appeared to advocate more explicitly for vaccine "freedom," writing, "Do your research. Do what's right for you."

dispelling rumors abt my stance on vaccines. i'm not anti. my kids are vaccinated. so much anger and hysteria. i hope this clears things up.

- Mayim Bialik (@missmayim) February 11, 2015

honestly, people. do your research. do what's right for you. let me live my life and you live yours. no one gets... http://t.co/LdghmwZgLz

- Mayim Bialik (@missmayim) February 11, 2015

Robert DeNiro: This one's a heartbreaker: in 2017, the legendary actor (who has also publicly questioned whether vaccines are linked to autism and promoted the anti-vaccine film Vaxxed) partnered with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a press conference for the World Mercury Project (now the Children's Health Defense), a nonprofit organization known for its anti-vaccine stance. During the press conference, Kennedy offered journalists a $100,000 reward if they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that levels of thimerosal, a mercury-based, naturally occurring element used as a preservative in vaccines, are safe. According to the Centers for Disease Control, "data from many studies show no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines."

Kat Von D: In 2018, Von D announced in an Instagram post that she did not plan on vaccinating her first child; her husband, musician Leafar Sayer, also posted links to two anti-vaccine films, Vaxxed and Trace Amounts, on Instagram. She later (again, kind of) clarified her stance: "I am not an anti-vaxxer," she said in a YouTube video earlier this year. "What I am is a first-time mother. I am one of those moms that reads everything. Anything that is going in my baby or on my baby, I research like a complete and total nerd. After doing a bunch of research and reading the ingredients, naturally I experienced some hesitancy." (It's unclear whether she did end up vaccinating her son, who was born in December.)

Kevin Gates: In a 2016 interview with Rolling Stone, the rapper said that he believed his children were advanced in school (or "accelerated," in his terms) largely because they had not been vaccinated.

Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!," he famously tweeted in 2014. (There are not.) In light of the measles outbreak last spring, however, Trump appeared to have Donald Trump: The President of the United States spent a good portion of the 2010s railing against mandatory vaccination and propagating the claim that vaccines are linked to autism. " backtracked, telling CNN, "They [children] have to get the shots. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Guide to 17 Anti-Vaccination Celebrities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jessica Biel is many things: actor, mom, wife to Justin Timberlake, consummate ab-shower, purveyor of the theory that being hotter than Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman has ruined her career. This week, however, the world became aware of another credential on Biel's resume: anti-vaccine activist. In an Instagram post, prominent anti-vaccine activist Robert F.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028.

Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles.

In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park.

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Pro 1

Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.

Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.

Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.

A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
Read More

Pro 2

Banning bottled water is good for your health.

Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and requires weekly testing; tap water is more stringently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through multiple daily tests.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology found that the chemical antimony (Sb) can leach from plastic PET bottles into the water within. After six months storage at room temperature antimony (Sb) concentrations increased on average 90% in 48 brands of water from 11 countries. Exposure to antimony (Sb) can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, higher blood cholesterol, and low blood sugar.

Banning bottled water would reduce the number of plastic bottles manufactured via a process that emits harmful chemicals. Studies indicate that communities living close to PET factories suffer from increased levels of chronic illness and birth defects. In Corpus Christi, TX, where the US' largest PET factory is located, birth defects are 84% higher than the state average.
Read More

Pro 3

Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful.

Mathematicians at Penn State University estimate that spending $20 on a reusable water bottle can save the average American up to $1,236 a year. For a family of four that amounts to nearly $5,000.

In San Francisco, where single-use plastic water bottles are banned, 31 water fountains have been added to public areas with 20 more planned. New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio banned single-use water bottles via executive order in Feb. 2020, has 51 water fountains, with another 500 planned by 2025. With public fountains easily available, people can refill reusable water bottles.
Read More

Pro 4

Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.

Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.

In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state's reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.

In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.

According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, "during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area."
Read More

Con 1

Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.

Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says "Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That's the kind of difference we're talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water."

In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, "The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice... while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks."

The International Bottled Water Association noted, "research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water."

In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
Read More

Con 2

Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.

Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks' carbonation - 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9oz bottle.

A study by Quantis found that between 2007 and 2015, bottled water providers reduced the amount of material used in 8oz-2.5 gallon plastic water bottles by 42.8% - PET plastic is the most common material used in these bottles.

Another study by Quantis, commissioned by Nestlé Waters, found that the packaging and distribution of "sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water."

Plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%).

A study on the University of Vermont's ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles found that total shipments of plastic bottles actually increased 20% as consumers increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages rather than switching to using reusable bottles and drinking from water fountains.
Read More

Con 3

Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply.

If tap water is not drinkable, then bottled water is a necessary replacement, making its availability essential to public health.

Ready.gov, the Department of Homeland Security's preparedness website on how to prepare for natural and man-made disasters, recommends everyone "buy commercially bottled water and store it in the sealed original container in cool, dark place."

In Apr. 2014, officials in Flint, MI, changed the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint River water is highly corrosive - it eroded water pipes delivering tap water to residents' homes resulting in iron and lead leaching into the water, poisoning those who drank and bathed in it. Between Jan. 2016 and Apr. 2018, the state distributed free 16oz bottles of water to residents for use instead of tap water - it was estimated that a family of three used 151 of these water bottles a day.
Read More

Con 4

Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses.

A survey by Harris Poll for the International Bottled Water Association found that 93% of Americans think "bottled water should be available wherever drinks are sold," with 31% saying that they only, or mostly only, drink bottled water.

Research by Kantor Panel Worldwide found that "40% of all water servings come in the form of bottled water."

As one blogger said, "everyone tells me that I'm wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren't for bottled water I honestly wouldn't drink any water at all... My personal choice is just not tap. I don't like it."

Daniel Kenn, owner of Sudbury Coffee Works in Sudbury, MA, where a plastic water bottle ban was enacted, said, "people want water, it's probably the biggest money maker in that cooler... almost every other town still allows plastic water bottle sales, which will put Sudbury Coffee Works at a competitive disadvantage when the ban takes effect."
Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should single-use plastics, such as water bottles, be banned? Why or why not?

2. Should other single-use beverage bottles (soda, sports drinks, etc) be banned? Why or why not?

3. What other ways might we prevent plastic from ending up in the ocean? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action
1. Consider the argument that single-use plastic is a " serious climate change hazard."

2. Explore which cities and states have single-use plastic bag bans.

3. Evaluate the argument that bottled water bans harm the environment and public health.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources More Environmental Debates
Should the United States Continue Fracking? - Proponents say natural gas is a bridge fuel to 100% clean energy. Opponents say we need to immediately move away from all fossil fuels.

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown? - Proponents say GMO foods have been proven safe. Opponents say studies have not confirmed the safety of GMOs.

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? - The pros and cons of the alternative and renewable energies debate include arguments for and against solar, wind, and nuclear powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People moved to the United States in the past for the same reasons as today: to join their families, to work, and to seek safety and refuge from war, violence, and natural disasters.

According to figures drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were roughly 45 million immigrants in the United States in 2017, meaning that immigrants make up about 14 percent of the population. Nearly 90 million people-28 percent of the overall U.S. population-are immigrants or their U.S.-born children, according to the 2018 Current Population Survey.

Two-thirds of undocumented immigrants have been living in the United States for more than 10 years and many of them live with their children who are U.S. citizens.

When was the current U.S. immigration system established?

There was never a single, coherent act by the U.S. Congress to create an immigration system. Historically, the United States has had an unfortunate history of enacting restrictive exclusionary laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the National Origins Act of 1924, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The system as we know it today is the result of several major legislative reforms:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was a sweeping act that ended the national origins quota system-which disproportionately favored European immigrants-and created the foundation of the current system, under which immigration is based around family reunification and the needs of employers.

The Refugee Act of 1980 adopted the United Nation's definition of "refugees" and expanded the annual admission of refugees.

In 1986, a Democratic Congress approved, and President Reagan signed into law, a major immigration reform bill, which created a path to citizenship for people who entered the United States without permission before 1982. The law also made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law legislation that created the Temporary Protected Status program, which allowed people fleeing violence and natural disasters to legally work and live in the United States until their home country had sufficiently recovered.

The DREAM Act, designed to offer undocumented youth a path to legal status, was first introduced in Congress in 2001 and has support from members of both political parties. Although it been approved by committees in both the House and Senate, it has yet to become law.

In 2012, President Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed a specific group of young immigrants without status, who were brought to the United States as children, to apply for work authorization permits and protection from immediate deportation. The Trump administration ended the program in 2017, although the federal courts have kept the program in place.

Since then, immigration reform has eluded presidents of both parties. Several measures have been introduced, and even passed one chamber with bipartisan support, but they stalled out short of final passage.

What role do immigrants play in the U.S. economy?

According to the National Academy of Sciences, "immigration is integral to the nation's economic growth." That is partially because the U.S. workforce is getting older, which makes the arrival of tax-paying, job-creating, and business-starting newcomers an economic necessity. The report also found that there is "little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers."

In fact, IRS data from 2015 shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers without Social Security numbers-who are more likely to be undocumented-which were worth $23.6 billion [PDF].

What's the difference between a refugee, asylum seeker, migrant, and immigrant?

The terms "asylum seeker," "immigrant," "migrant," and "refugee" are often used interchangeably. The differences between the four, however, are important.

According to the International Rescue Committee:

Refugees are people living outside of the United States who were "forced to flee [their] home because of war, violence, or persecution, often without warning."

Asylum seekers are people who are "seeking international protection from dangers in [their] home country, but whose claim for refugee status hasn't been determined legally." People seeking asylum are applying inside the United States. Whether a person is seeking asylum or status as a refugee, they have to meet the same challenging burden of proof. They must demonstrate "a well-founded fear of persecution" on the basis of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or member of a social group.

Migrants are people who are "moving from place to place (within [their] country or across borders), usually for economic reasons such as seasonal work."

Immigrants are people who have made "a conscious decision to leave his or her home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there."

What motivates asylum seekers to come to the United States?

While some asylum seekers come to the United States because of poverty, research by Doctors Without Borders [PDF], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others has shown that a large-and growing-number of them are trying to escape violence.

In 2010, for example, 13 percent of the people apprehended at the U.S. southern border came from Central America's so-called Northern Triangle-Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. With violence and crime now at unprecedented levels-they are among the top 10 most violent countries in terms of homicides-that number had jumped to 42 percent in 2016.

According to Pew Research, more Mexicans are leaving the United States rather than entering. Between 2009 and 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families-including U.S.-born children-left the United States for Mexico.

More recently, there's been a significant increase in the number of women and children fleeing violence and crime from the Northern Triangle. Between fiscal year 2018 and 2019, there has been a 374 percent increase in the number of families seeking asylum in the United States.

Are refugees vetted before entering the United States?

The process for vetting refugees is long and difficult, typically taking between 18 months and two years to complete. Refugees must register with the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees, which does an initial screening before referring qualifying individuals to the U.S. Department of State. The State Department then conducts background and security checks, fingerprinting, biometric screening, and medical tests. Only after all of these steps have been taken can a person enter the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Does the U.S. Need Immigration Reform?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How we treat newcomers should reflect the values of fairness and equality that define the United States as a country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country. The origin countries of unauthorized immigrants also shifted during that time, with the number from Mexico declining and the number rising from Central America and Asia, according to the latest Pew Research Center estimates.

Here are five facts about the unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S.

There were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2017, representing 3.2% of the total U.S. population that year. The 2017 unauthorized immigrant total is a 14% drop from the peak of 12.2 million in 2007, when this group was 4% of the U.S. population.

The number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007, while the total from other nations ticked up. Mexicans made up less than half of all unauthorized U.S. immigrants (47%) in 2017 for the first time, according to the Center's estimate, compared with 57% in 2007. Their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining in recent years: There were 4.9 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2017, down from 6.9 million in 2007.

Try our email course on immigration

Learn about U.S. immigration through five short lessons delivered to your inbox every other day.
Sign up now!

Meanwhile, the total from other nations, 5.5 million in 2017, ticked up from 2007, when it was 5.3 million. The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 from both Central America and Asia. There were 1.5 million Central American unauthorized immigrants in 2007 and 1.9 million in 2017. This growth was fueled mainly by immigrants from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The number from Asia, 1.3 million in 2007, rose to 1.5 million in 2017.

At the same time, the number of unauthorized immigrants from South America and Europe decreased between 2007 and 2017. Other large regions (the Caribbean, Middle East-North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world) did not change significantly during that time.

The U.S. civilian workforce includes 7.6 million unauthorized immigrants, representing a decline since 2007. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of unauthorized immigrant workers fell by 625,000, as did their share of the total U.S. workforce over the same period. In 2017, this group accounted for 4.6% of those in the U.S. who were working or were unemployed and looking for work.

Six states account for 57% of unauthorized immigrants: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. From 2007 to 2017, individual states experienced different trends. The unauthorized immigrant population decreased in a dozen states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. In five states, the unauthorized immigrant population rose over the same period: Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota and South Dakota.

A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade. About two-thirds (66%) of unauthorized immigrant adults in 2017 had been in the U.S. more than 10 years, compared with 41% in 2007. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for five years or less - 20% of adults in 2017, compared with 30% in 2007. In 2017, unauthorized immigrant adults had lived in the U.S. for a median of 15.1 years, meaning that half had been in the country at least that long.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published on Nov. 18, 2014.
Read more about immigration:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has dropped to the level it was in 2004, and Mexicans are no longer a majority of this population. This decline is due mainly to a large drop in the number of new unauthorized immigrants, especially Mexicans, coming into the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action can or should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions, and some have attempted to convince the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence, attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.

The controversy is, by now, political rather than scientific: there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity. Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and such disputes are more prevalent in the United States than globally.

Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of global warming includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, and whether human activities have contributed significantly to it. Scientists have resolved these questions decisively in favor of the view that the current warming trend exists and is ongoing, that human activity is the cause, and that it is without precedent in at least 2000 years. Public disputes that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive the climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases ( climate sensitivity), how the climate will change at local and regional scales, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, often split along party political lines, especially in the United States. Many of the issues that are settled within the scientific community, such as human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them-an ideological phenomenon categorized by academics and scientists as climate change denial. The sources of funding for those involved with climate science opposing mainstream scientific positions have been questioned. There are debates about the best policy responses to the science, their cost-effectiveness and their urgency. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects, and measures to reduce it have reached American courts. The fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

In the United States, the mass media devoted little coverage to global warming until the drought of 1988, and James E. Hansen's testimony to the Senate, which explicitly attributed "the abnormally hot weather plaguing our nation" to global warming. Global warming in the U.S., gained more attention after the release of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, featuring Al Gore in 2006.

The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by Margaret Thatcher to the Royal Society advocating action against human-induced climate change. According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote nuclear power, in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the 1984-1985 miners' strike was one reason for the change in public discourse. At the same time environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding "solutions that contrasted with the government's". In May 2013 Charles, Prince of Wales took a strong stance criticising both climate change deniers and corporate lobbyists by likening the Earth to a dying patient. "A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can't wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there."

Many European countries took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 1990. West Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in the 1980s. All countries of the European Union ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well. The United States Energy Information Administration reports that, in the United States, "The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12% below the recent 2007 peak."

The theory that increases in greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in temperature was first proposed by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, but climate change did not arise as a political issue until the 1990s. It took many years for this particular issue to attract any type of attention.

In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in the United States and other countries. A 2009 survey found that Europeans rated climate change as the second most serious problem facing the world, between "poverty, the lack of food and drinking water" and "a major global economic downturn". 87% of Europeans considered climate change to be a very serious or serious problem, while ten per cent did not consider it a serious problem.

In 2007, the BBC announced the cancellation of a planned television special Planet Relief, which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off. The editor of BBC's Newsnight current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped." Author Mark Lynas said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance."

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, provide documentation for the assertion that professional deniers have tried to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that only half of the American population believes global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these deniers. One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.

A compendium of poll results on public perceptions about global warming is below.

There is widespread recognition that the climate, irrespective of the cause, is changing-88% believe this to be true.

However, the public is out of step with the scientific community, with 41% believing that climate change is being caused by both human activity and natural processes. 46% believe human activity is the main cause.

Only a small minority reject anthropogenic climate change, while almost half (44%) are very concerned. However, there remains a large proportion who are not fully persuaded and hold doubts about the extent of the threat.

There is still a strong appetite among the public for more information, and 63% say they need this to come to a firm view on the issue and what it means for them.

The public continue to externalize climate change to other people, places and times. It is increasingly perceived as a major global issue with far-reaching consequences for future generations-45% say it is the most serious threat facing the World today and 53% believe it will impact significantly on future generations. However, the issue features less prominently nationally and locally, indeed only 9% believe climate change will have a significant impact upon them personally.

The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist David Suzuki reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation in 2006 showed that the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming. This is despite publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour.

An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.

A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006, by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming-roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China -the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming-the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem."

A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007, found, "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem."

There are differences between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public. A 2009 poll, in the US by Pew Research Center found "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees". A 2010 poll in the UK for the BBC showed "Climate scepticism on the rise". Robert Watson found this "very disappointing" and said "We need the public to understand that climate change is serious so they will change their habits and help us move towards a low carbon economy." A 2012 Canadian poll, found that 32% of Canadians said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54% said they believe it's because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. 9% believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation, and only 2% said they do not believe climate change is occurring at all.

Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such as ozone depletion, DDT, and passive smoking. Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of "skeptical" scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organized attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney says that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial became increasingly prevalent under the George W. Bush administration, which, he says, regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims. This is also the subject of a 2004 book by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. titled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy ( ISBN 978-0060746872). Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former Vice President of the United States Al Gore. The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan chronicles how Congress tied climate change denial to attacks on the scientific bases for ozone depletion and asbestos removal, among other topics.

Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.

Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Scientific consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, publication in the scientific literature, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. In the case of global warming, many governmental reports, the media in many countries, and environmental groups, have stated that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused global warming is real and poses a serious concern. According to the United States National Research Council,

Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment, some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) relative to natural forcings and its harm-to-benefit ratio. Other opponents assert that some kind of ill-defined "consensus argument" is being used, and then dismiss this by arguing that science is based on facts rather than consensus. Some highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls or consensus.

Dennis T. Avery, a food policy analyst at the Hudson Institute, wrote an article titled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares" published in 2007, by the Heartland Institute. The list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned. Many of the scientists included in the list demanded their names be removed. At least 45 scientists had no idea they were included as "co-authors" and disagreed with the conclusions of the document. The Heartland Institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right-legally or ethically-to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree".

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers". Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately-and this is hard to say without sounding elitist-mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers." Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category."

A 2013 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainty about it.

In 2014, a letter from 52 leading skeptics was published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry supporting the scientific consensus and asking the media to stop referring to deniers as "skeptics". The letter clarified the skeptical opinion on climate and denial: "As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is 'denial'. Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

Opponents have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, people or the Synthesis and Executive summaries; the full reports attract less attention. Some of the controversy and criticism has originated from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels.

Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said "Landsea's comments were not correct"; the IPCC replied "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4. Roger Pielke, Jr. commented "Both Landsea and Trenberth can and should feel vindicated ... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent summary for policy makers."

In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive aspects of global warming". The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government and by the Stern Review.

Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote:

On 10 December 2008, a report was released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority members, under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming denier Jim Inhofe. The timing of the report coincided with the UN global warming conference in Poznań, Poland. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC. Many of its statements about the numbers of individuals listed in the report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.

While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming. editor Brooks Hanson states in a 2010 editorial: "The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating societies' abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions." Climate scientist James E. Hansen argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters-enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida. Roger A. Pielke Sr. has also stated "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate."

Henderson-Sellers has collected comments from IPCC authors in a 2007 workshop revealing a number of concerns. She concluded, "Climate change research entered a new and different regime with the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. There is no longer any question about 'whether' human activities are changing the climate; instead research must tackle the urgent questions of: 'how fast?'; 'with what impacts?'; and 'what responses are needed?'"

Attribution of recent climate change discusses the evidence for recent global warming. Nonetheless, one argument against global warming says that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming.

Studies of the Vostok ice core show that at the "beginning of the deglaciations, the CO₂ increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations". Recent warming is followed by carbon dioxide levels with only a five-month delay. The time lag has been used to argue that the current rise in CO₂ is a result of warming and not a cause. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing, a main part of current warming is found to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO₂, having a much closer time relation not observed in the past (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO₂ emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO₂ shows that the recent observed CO₂ increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.

Carbon dioxide accounts for about 390 parts per million by volume (ppm) of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 284 ppm in the 1830s to 387 ppm in 2009. Carbon dioxide contributes between 9 and 26% of the natural greenhouse effect.

In the Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era (about 450 million years ago), the Earth had an atmospheric CO₂ concentration estimated at 4400 ppm (or 0.44% of the atmosphere), while also having evidence of some glaciation. Modeling work has shown that it is possible for local areas at elevations greater than 300-500 meters to contain year-round snow cover even with high atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. A 2006 study suggests that the elevated CO₂ levels and the glaciation are not synchronous, but rather that weathering associated with the uplift and erosion of the Appalachian Mountains greatly reduced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and permitted the observed glaciation.

The "standard" set of scenarios for future atmospheric greenhouse gases are the IPCC SRES scenarios. The purpose of the range of scenarios is not to predict what exact course the future of emissions will take, but what it may take under a range of possible population, economic and societal trends. Climate models can be run using any of the scenarios as inputs to illustrate the different outcomes for climate change. No one scenario is officially preferred, but in practice the "A1b" scenario roughly corresponding to 1%/year growth in atmospheric CO ₂ is often used for modeling studies.

There is debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming denier Fred Singer stated "some good experts believe" that atmospheric CO ₂ concentration will not double since economies are becoming less reliant on carbon.

However, the Stern report, like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO ₂ emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO ₂ levels, concluding that:

Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO ₂ well beyond 750 ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.

On 12 November 2015, NASA scientists reported that human-made carbon dioxide (CO ₂) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming; others attribute global warming to natural variation; ocean currents; increased solar activity or cosmic rays. The consensus position is that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m ² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m ² for the net anthropogenic forcing. The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades." The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.

A few studies say that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years, however they said "that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", and concluded that "at the most 30% of the strong warming since [1970] can be of solar origin". Muscheler et al. disagreed with the study, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years. They concluded that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun.".

Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the statement that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations. Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude, "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

The hiatus in warming from the 1940s to 1960s is generally attributed to cooling effect of sulphate aerosols. More recently, this forcing has (relatively) declined, which may have enhanced warming, though the effect is regionally varying. See global dimming. Another example of this is in Ruckstuhl's paper who found a 60% reduction in aerosol concentrations over Europe causing solar brightening:

... the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ~ 1 W m −2 decade −1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

There have been attempts to raise public controversy over the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record on the basis of the urban heat island effect, the quality of the surface station network, and assertions that there have been unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record.

Weather stations that are used to compute global temperature records are not evenly distributed over the planet, and their distribution has changed over time. There were a small number of weather stations in the 1850s, and the number did not reach the current 3000+ until the 1951 to 1990 period

The 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) acknowledged that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cited analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990. Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas.

Parker (2006) found that there was no difference in warming between calm and windy nights. Since the urban heat island effect is strongest for calm nights and is weak or absent on windy nights, this was taken as evidence that global temperature trends are not significantly contaminated by urban effects. Pielke and Matsui published a paper disagreeing with Parker's conclusions.

In 2005, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States. In 2007, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations. The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently published a study by Menne et al. which examined the record of stations picked out by Watts' Surfacestations.org and found that, if anything, the poorly sited stations showed a slight cool bias rather than the warm bias which Watts had anticipated.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group carried out an independent assessment of land temperature records, which examined issues raised by deniers, such as the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The preliminary results, made public in October 2011, found that these factors had not biased the results obtained by NOAA, the Hadley Centre together with the Climatic Research Unit ( HadCRUT) and NASA's GISS in earlier studies. The group also confirmed that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results closely matched those obtained from these earlier studies. The four papers they had produced had been submitted for peer review.

General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer. Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature", leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.

There has been a public dispute regarding the apparent contradiction in the observed behavior of Antarctica, as opposed to the global rise in temperatures measured elsewhere in the world. This became part of the public debate in the global warming controversy, particularly between advocacy groups of both sides in the public arena, as well as the popular media.

In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed. A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth's continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases." According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."

This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al., which found "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn." Later the controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear, who advocated "skepticism" of global warming. This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran, et al. Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated "... our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Crichton in his novel State of Fear ... 'Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent."

As defined by the IPCC, climate sensitivity is the "equilibrium temperature rise that would occur for a doubling of CO ₂ concentration above pre-industrial levels". In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC said that climate sensitivity is "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C". In the fifth annual report, the lower end was lowered back to 1.5 °C, with the upper limit remaining at 4.5 °C. This is the range that was originally published in the 1990 report, which was in turn based on the 1979 'Charney report'.

Using a combination of surface temperature history and ocean heat content, Stephen E. Schwartz has proposed an estimate of climate sensitivity of 1.9 ± 1.0 K for doubled CO ₂., revised upwards from 1.1 ± 0.5 K. Grant Foster, James Annan, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael E. Mann argue that there are errors in both versions of Schwartz's analysis. Petr Chylek and co-authors have also proposed low climate sensitivity to doubled CO ₂, estimated to be 1.6 K ± 0.4 K.

In January 2013 widespread publicity was given to work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, which reportedly found lower climate sensitivities than IPCC estimates and the suggestion that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO ₂ emissions will increase temperatures by lower values than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC was featured in news outlets including The Economist. This premature announcement came from a preliminary news release about a study which had not yet been peer reviewed. The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO) issued a statement that they were involved with the relevant research project, and the news story was based on a report submitted to the research council which included both published and unpublished material. The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a journal before disseminating the results.

In 2001, Richard Lindzen proposed a system of compensating meteorological processes involving clouds that tend to stabilize climate change; he tagged this the " Iris hypothesis", or "Infrared Iris". This work has been discussed in a number of papers

Roy Spencer et al. suggested "a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system" in tropical intraseasonal oscillations "may potentially support" the idea of an "Iris" effect, although they point out that their work is concerned with much shorter time scales.

Other analyses have found that the iris effect is a positive feedback rather than the negative feedback proposed by Lindzen.

James Hansen's 1984 climate model projections versus observed temperatures are updated each year by Dr Mikako Sato of Columbia University. The RealClimate website provides an annual update comparing both Hansen's 1988 model projections and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) climate model projections with observed temperatures recorded by GISS and HadCRUT. The measured temperatures show continuing global warming.

Conventional projections of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future anthropogenic GHG emissions (see SRES), those positive and negative climate change feedbacks that have so far been incorporated into the models, and the climate sensitivity. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. Others have proposed that temperature increases may be higher than IPCC estimates. One theory is that the climate may reach a " tipping point" where positive feedback effects lead to runaway global warming; such feedbacks include decreased reflection of solar radiation as sea ice melts, exposing darker seawater, and the potential release of large volumes of methane from thawing permafrost. In 1959, Bert Bolin, in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, predicted that by the year 2000, there would be a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the levels in 1859. The actual increase by 2000 was about 29%.

David Orrell or Henk Tennekes say that climate change cannot be accurately predicted. Orrell says that the range of future increase in temperature suggested by the IPCC rather represents a social consensus in the climate community, but adds "we are having a dangerous effect on the climate". A 2007 study by David Douglass and coworkers, concluded that the 22 most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC were unable to accurately predict accelerated warming in the troposphere although they did match actual surface warming, concluding "projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution". This result went against a similar study of 19 models which found that discrepancies between model predictions and actual temperature were likely due to measurement errors.

In a NASA report published in January 2013, Hansen and Sato noted "the 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, stated that the "surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years." Using the long-term temperature trends for the earth scientists and statisticians conclude that it continues to warm through time.

The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:

Certain scientists believe this confidence in the models' ability to predict future climate is not earned.

Following the (then) record low of the arctic sea ice extend in 2007, Mark Serreze, the director of US National Snow and Ice Data Center, stated "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate." In 2012, during another record low, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted a possible final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months around 2016.

Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent are available on a daily basis from the National Snow & Ice Data Center.

Scientific journals and funding agencies generally require authors of peer-reviewed research to provide information on archives of data and share sufficient data and methods necessary for a scientific expert on the topic to reproduce the work.

In political controversy over the 1998 and 1999 historic temperature reconstructions widely publicised as the " hockey stick graphs", Mann, Bradley and Hughes as authors of the studies were sent letters on 23 June 2005 from Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, demanding full records on the research. The letters told the scientist to provide not just data and methods, but also personal information about their finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.

Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" seemingly intended to "intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review". The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Ralph Cicerone wrote to Barton proposing that the NAS should appoint an independent panel to investigate. Barton dismissed this offer.

Many scientists protested Barton's demands. Alan I. Leshner wrote to him on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science stating that the letters gave "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding", He stated that Mann, Bradley and Hughes had given out their full data and descriptions of methods. AWashington Post editorial on 23 July which described the investigation as harassment quoted Bradley as saying it was "intrusive, far-reaching and intimidating", and Alan I. Leshner of the AAAS describing it as unprecedented in the 22 years he had been a government scientist; he thought it could "have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to work in areas that are politically relevant". Congressman Boehlert said the investigation was as "at best foolhardy" with the tone of the letters showing the committee's inexperience in relation to science.

Barton was given support by global warming sceptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said "We've always wanted to get the science on trial ... we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law," and "this could work". In his Junk Science column on Fox News, Steven Milloy said Barton's inquiry was reasonable. In September 2005 David Legates alleged in a newspaper op-ed that the issue showed climate scientists not abiding by data access requirements and suggested that legislators might ultimately take action to enforce them.

Boehlert commissioned the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to appoint an independent panel which investigated the issues and produced the North Report which confirmed the validity of the science. At the same time, Barton arranged with statistician Edward Wegman to back up the attacks on the "hockey stick" reconstructions. The Wegman Report repeated allegations about disclosure of data and methods, but Wegman failed to provide the code and data used by his team, despite repeated requests, and his report was subsequently found to contain plagiarized content. The "hockey stick" reconstructions and issues of data archiving and sharing subsequently became central features of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans tend to oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproven, while Democrats tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming and its effects through the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth stated:

As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:

1. The social and environmental impacts

2. The appropriate response to climate change

3. Whether decisions require less uncertainty

The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:

Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine." ... [The] point is that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been-globally averaged, we're talking-fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. ( Stephen H. Schneider)

There is debate on whether action (such as the restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now or in the near future. Because of the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who argue that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits. They state that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.

Conversely, others argue that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change. In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, Joseph J. Romm

discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so...

Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Walter Russell Mead argues that the 2009 Copenhagen Summit failed because environmentalists have changed from "Bambi to Godzilla". According to Mead, environmentalists used to represent the skeptical few who made valid arguments against big government programs which tried to impose simple but massive solutions on complex situations. Environmentalists' more recent advocacy for big economic and social intervention against global warming, according to Mead, has made them, "the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats" and thus has lost them the support of a public which is increasingly skeptical of global warming.

Various campaigns such as 350.org and many Greenpeace projects have been started in an effort to push the world's leaders towards changing laws and policies that would effectively reduce the world's carbon emissions and use of non-renewable energy resources.

As the first legally binding climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (signed 11 December 1997, effective 16 February 2005) was the most prominent international agreement on climate change prior to the Paris Agreement of 2015. Highly controversial, it was criticized both for going too far and not nearly far enough in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. A major flaw of the agreement, in terms of its potential to meet its goals, was that the two leading emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, China and the United States, were not bound by the protocol.

The United States was the only major developed nation to sign but not ratify the Kyoto protocol ( see signatories). The agreement was brokered by then-Vice President Al Gore and signed by then-President Bill Clinton on 12 November 1998 but it was never ratified by the US Senate. Soon after taking office, in March 2001, then-President George W. Bush withdrew the US as a signatory. Canada, under the Harper government, withdrew from the protocol on 15 December 2012.

The Kyoto protocol established a two-tier system, of Annex I (developed) and Annex II (developing) countries, who were differentially affected as signatories. Both China and India, the world's two most populous countries, were ranked as "developing countries". As a result, although both ratified the protocol, they were not required to reduce or even limit the growth of carbon emissions under the agreement. As listed by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, they had rankings of 121st largest per capita emitter at 3.9 Tonnes of and 162nd largest per capita emitter at 1.8 Tonnes of CO ₂e respectively, compared with for example the U.S. at position of the 14th largest per capita CO ₂e emitter at 22.9 Tonnes of CO ₂e. Nevertheless, China was the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, and India the 4th (see: countries by greenhouse emissions).

Additionally, as predicted by Fred Singer, high costs of decreasing emissions caused significant production to move to countries that were not covered under the treaty, such as India and China. The outsourcing of carbon-intensive parts of the production chain from traditionally wealthier countries to countries like China and India who were considered developing countries, has displaced emissions rather than reducing overall emissions.

In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by academics and policy makers from the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford. The paper argued that the Kyoto Protocol crashed in late 2009 and "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years." They criticized the Kyoto Protocols for focusing too much on carbon emissions. Their paper advocated a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy that would broaden the range of approaches taken. The Hartwell paper proposed that "the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be". They preferred not to suggest specific structural steps for achieving such changes.

A 2021 review considers both the institutional design and the political strategies that have affected the adoption of the Kyoto protocol. It concludes that the Kyoto protocol's relatively small impact on global carbon dioxide emissions reflects a number of factors, including "deliberate political strategy, unequal power, and the absence of leadership" among and within nations. The efforts of fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks to spread disinformation and climate change denial have influenced public opinion and political action both within the United States and beyond it. The direct lobbying of fossil fuel companies and their funding of political actors have slowed political action to address climate change at regional, national, and international levels.

The Global Climate Coalition was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed skepticism about global warming. In the year 2000, several members left the coalition when they became the target of a national divestiture campaign run by John Passacantando and Phil Radford at Ozone Action. According to The New York Times, when Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition, it was "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming". After that, between December 1999 and early March 2000, the GCC was deserted by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, energy firm the Southern Company and General Motors. The Global Climate Coalition closed in 2002, or in their own words, 'deactivated'.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate change denier Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants to Soon from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007, totaled $274,000, and from ExxonMobil totaled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research". In February 2015, Greenpeace disclosed papers documenting that Soon failed to disclose to academic journals funding including more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel industry related interests including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Southern Company. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science". It was noted that ExxonMobil's contributions to The Independent Institute totaled $20,000 since 2002. The George C. Marshall Institute received $630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the godfather of global warming skepticism", served as both Chairman Emeritus of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.

To investigate how widespread such hidden funding was, senators Barbara Boxer, Edward Markey and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote to a number of companies. Koch general counsel refused the request and said it would infringe the company's first amendment rights.

The Greenpeace research project ExxonSecrets, and George Monbiot writing in The Guardian, as well as various academics, have linked several climate-skeptical scientists- Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels-to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming denial. These organizations include the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Similarly, groups employing global warming deniers, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

On 2 February 2007, The Guardian stated that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process", specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning power plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', that criticizes ExxonMobil for " underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for " funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue". In 2006, Exxon said that it was no longer going to fund these groups though that statement has been challenged by Greenpeace.

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of , has said that deniers such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to deniers amounts to "trying to get a political message across".

Global warming denier Reid Bryson said in June 2007, "There is a lot of money to be made in this ... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'." Similar positions have been advanced by University of Alabama, Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer, Spencer's University of Alabama, Huntsville colleague and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott, Accuracy in Media, and Ian Plimer.

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, said, "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [at MIT], lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century." Lindzen also suggested that four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services", as well as funding from US federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.

In recent years some climate change skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable."

"There are alternatives to its [the climate-change crusade's] insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us." says Steven F. Hayward of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive"-the space sunshade example of so-called geoengineering for solar radiation management.

In 2001, Richard Lindzen, asked whether it was necessary to try to reduce CO ₂ emissions, said that responses needed to be prioritized. "You can't just say, 'No matter what the cost, and no matter how little the benefit, we'll do this'. If we truly believe in warming, then we've already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?"

Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO ₂ emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. Large developing nations such as India and China are predicted to be major emitters of greenhouse gases in the next few decades as their economies grow.

The conservative National Center for Policy Analysis whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change deniers including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer says, "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO ₂ emissions."

The adaptation-only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil's plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur. The company's plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership," says this Ceres report.

The George W. Bush administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only policy in the US in 2002. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report [ U.S. Climate Action Report 2002] to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions-mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." The report however "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming." This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later, "The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation', said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough money to do everything.'" The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however:

Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate, the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior Secretary Hodel's proposal that the government address the hole in the ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses, suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of air-conditioning ... Far from proposing solutions to the climate change problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners.

-  Letter from 11 State Attorneys General to George W. Bush.,

Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an inherent bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption) and for the prolonging of profits to the oil industry at the expense of the environment. "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says writer and environmental activist George Monbiot in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be sufficient. See also Copenhagen Consensus.

Though not emphasized to the same degree as mitigation, adaptation to a climate certain to change has been included as a necessary component in the discussion as early as 1992, and has been all along. However it was not to the exclusion, advocated by the deniers, of preventive mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.

A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2007, noted "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change denial. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005, before being hired by ExxonMobil). In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election.

Officials, such as Philip Cooney repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, were ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.

Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article in 2006, that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government views, in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. When multiple scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration made similar complaints; government officials again said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

In 2006, the BBC current affairs program investigated the issue, and was told, "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."

According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,

Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

In April 2010, then Virginia Attorney General and Republican Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation. As part a civil investigation, Cuccinelli's office served the University of Virginia with subpoenas demanding they provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999 to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect on future research. UVA filed a court petition and the judge dismissed Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown for the investigation. Cuccinelli then issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a victory for academic freedom.

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. This lawsuit was found to lack legal merit and was tossed out. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., a class action lawsuit filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming. Described as a nuisance lawsuit, it was dismissed by District Court. However, the District Court's decision was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which instructed the District Court to reinstate several of the plaintiffs' climate change-related claims on 22 October 2009. The Sierra Club sued the U.S. government over failure to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards, and thereby decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Kelsey Cascade, Rose Juliana et. al. vs. United States

In a lawsuit organized by activist organization Our Children's Trust, a group of plaintiffs aged 8-19 sued the U. S. Federal Government, claiming "the government has known for decades that carbon dioxide (CO ₂) pollution has been causing catastrophic climate change and has failed to take necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions." On 8 April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin denied defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs have standing to sue because they will be disproportionately affected by the alleged damages. "The intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life," argued Coffin, "necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government".

1. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (December 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

2. ^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-14588-6. Archived from the original on 29 May 2014. (p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

3. ^ "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" (PDF). United States National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 April 2013. Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

4. ^ Lovejoy, S. (April 2014). "Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming". Climate Dynamics. 42 (9-10): 2339-2351. Bibcode:2014ClDy...42.2339L. doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2. S2CID 128760093.

5. ^ Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". . 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.

6. ^ DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.

7. ^ Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653-689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. ISSN 1543-5938.

8. ^ Mann, Michael E.; Toles, Tom (2016). The Madhouse Effect. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/mann17786. ISBN 978-0231541817.

9. ^ Oreskes, Naomi & Conway, Erik (2012). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1408824832. OCLC 934374946.

10. ^ Boykoff, M.; Boykoff, J. (July 2004). "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press" (PDF). Global Environmental Change Part A. 14 (2): 125-136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2015.

11. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (first ed.). Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.

12. ^ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years and National Research Council (2006). Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: The National Academies. doi:10.17226/11676. ISBN 978-0-309-10225-4.

13. ^ Leiserowitz, A.; Carman, J.; Buttermore, N.; Wang, X.; et al. (June 2021). International Public Opinion on Climate Change (PDF). New Haven, CT, U.S.: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Facebook Data for Good. p. 7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 June 2021.

14. ● Survey results from: ^ The Peoples' Climate Vote. UNDP.org. United Nations Development Programme. 26 January 2021. Archived from the original on 28 January 2021. Fig. 3.
● Data re top emitters from:

15. ^ "Public perceptions on climate change" (PDF). PERITIA Trust EU - The Policy Institute of Kings College London. June 2022. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 July 2022.

16. ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183-184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.

17. ^ Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005.

18. ^ Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.

19. ^ Sparkman, Gregg; Geiger, Nathan; Weber, Elke U. (23 August 2022). "Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half". Nature Communications. Fig. 3. 13: 4779. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y. ● Explained in

20. ^ Poushter, Jacob; Fagan, Moira; Gubbala, Sneha (31 August 2022). "Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey". pewresearch.org. Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 31 August 2022. Only statistically significant differences shown.

21. ^ McCright, A. M.; Dunlap R. E. (2000). "Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims" (PDF). Social Problems. 47 (4): 499-522. doi:10.2307/3097132. JSTOR 3097132. See p. 500.

22. Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988), ^ Public Statement, Speech Archive, Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Retrieved 9 April 2007.

23. ^ Harvey, Fiona (9 May 2013). "Charles: 'Climate change sceptics are turning Earth into dying patient'". The Guardian. London.

24. ^ Bodansky, Daniel (2001). "The History of the Global Climate Change Regime" (PDF). In Luterbacher, Urs; Sprinz, Detlef F. (eds.). International Relations and Global Climate Change. The MIT Press. pp. 23-40. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2014.

25. ^ BBC drops climate change special. The Guardian. 5 September 2007. Retrieved 15 December 2011.

26. McCarthy, Michael, ^ Global Warming: Too Hot to Handle for the BBC Archived 15 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine, The Independent, 6 September 2007

27. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2010). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Conway, Erik M. (1st US ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1596916104. OCLC 461631066.

28. ^ Weart, Spencer (2006). "The Public and Climate Change". In Weart, Spencer (ed.). The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. ISBN 978-0-674-01157-1. Archived from the original on 5 March 2012.

29. Pew Research Center: "Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media" 9 July 2009.

30. ^ McGreal, Chris (26 October 2021). "Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 October 2021. Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.

31. ^ Richard J. Bord, Robert E. O'Connor, Ann Fischer; O'Connor; Fisher (1 July 2000). "In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?". Public Understanding of Science. 9 (3): 205-218. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301. S2CID 145055607.

32. ^ Peter Jacques (2009). Environmental skepticism: ecology, power and public life. Global environmental governance series. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-7102-2.

33. ^ George E. Brown (March 1997). "Environmental Science Under Siege in the U.S. Congress". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 39 (2): 12-31. doi:10.1080/00139159709604359.

34. ^ Gelbspan, Ross (1998). "A Congressional Book Burning". The Heat is On (updated ed.). Basic Books. pp. 63-83. ISBN 978-0738200255. p. 64: Congress's attack on the scientific evidence for planetary warming was preceded by a House subcommittee's attack on the scientific evidence for ozone depletion....

35. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183-184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.

36. Joint statement of sixteen National Academies of Science (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". The Royal Society. The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

37. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. "World Scientists Call For Action". Archived from the original on 12 October 2007. Projections indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.

38. ^ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 1 & 21-22. ISBN 978-0-309-14588-6. Archived from the original on 29 May 2014.

39. ^ Carter, Professor Robert M. (2010). Climate: The Counter Consensus. pp. 191-210.

40. ^ Crichton, Michael (17 January 2003). "Lecture at Caltech: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"". Archived from the original on 1 January 2006.

41. Haldar, Ishita. (2011). Global warming : the causes and consequences. New Delhi: Mind Melodies. p. 137. ISBN 978-93-80302-81-2. OCLC 695282079.

42. ^ Anderegg W.R.L.; Prall J.W.; Harold J.; Schneider S.H. (21 June 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 (27): 12107-09. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC . PMID 20566872.

43. ^ Collins, Nick (22 June 2010). "Climate change sceptic scientists 'less prominent and authoritative'". The Daily Telegraph. London. p. 1. Archived from the original on 25 June 2010.

44. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (20 December 2007). "The American Denial of Global Warming - The Truth About Denial". Perspectives on Ocean Science - UCSD-TV. YouTube. Archived from the original on 11 December 2021. In 1995, the IPCC concluded that the human effect on climate is now discernible. The lead author of the key chapter on detection and attribution...was a scientist of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory named Benjamin J. Santer.

When the IPCC report came out, Seitz, Nierenberg, and now a 4th physicist-a man by the name of S. Fred Singer-launched a highly personal attack on Santer. In an open letter to the IPCC, which they sent to numerous members of the US Congress, Singer, Seitz, and Nierenberg accused Santer of making "unauthorized" changes to the IPCC report [...]

They followed this with an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal titled "A Major Deception on Global Warming". This piece was written by Seitz, in which he states that the effect of the changes was "to deceive policy makers and the public".

Now Santer replied, in a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, and in the response he explained that he had made changes, but those changes were in response to the peer review process. In other words, totally normal scientific practice...This account was corroborated by the Chairman of the IPCC and by all of the other authors of the chapters. In fact, over 40 scientists were co-authors of this chapter. This letter was signed by Santer and 40 others and published in The Wall Street Journal in June 1996. And Santer was also formally defended by the American Meteorological Society.

But neither Seitz nor Singer ever retracted the charges, which was then repeated-many times, over and over again-by industry groups and think-tanks. And in fact, if you google "Ben Santer", these same charges are still in the Internet today. In fact, one site said that it was proven in 1996 that Santer had fraudulently altered the IPCC report.

45. ^ "UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims".

46. ^ "How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors?". Archived from the original on 27 January 2012.

47. ^ "More on Inhofe's alleged list of 650 scientists". Archived from the original on 22 January 2012.

48. ^ Biello D (April 2007). "Conservative Climate". Scientific American. 296 (4): 16-19. Bibcode:2007SciAm.296d..16B. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0407-16. PMID 17479619.

49. ^ Hansen JE (April-June 2007). "Scientific reticence and sea level rise". Environmental Research Letters. 2 (2): 024002. arXiv:physics/0703220. Bibcode:2007ERL.....2b4002H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002. S2CID 59929933.

50. ^ Liu, XiuMing; Chen, JiaSheng (2017). "CO₂ seasonal variation and global change: Test global warming from another point of view". Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions. 9 (1): 46-53. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1226.2017.00046 (inactive 31 July 2022).

51. ^ Kuo, C.; Lindberg, C.; Thomson, D.J. (22 February 1990). "Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature". Nature. 343 (6260): 709-714. Bibcode:1990Natur.343..709K. doi:10.1038/343709a0. S2CID 38339985.

52. ^ Weart, Spencer (2006). "Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations". In Weart, Spencer (ed.). The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. ISBN 978-0-674-01157-1. Archived from the original on 5 March 2012.

53. ^ "Historical CO₂ record derived from a spline fit (20 year cutoff) of the Law Dome DE08 and DE08-2 ice cores". Archived from the original on 5 March 2012.

54. ^ Crowley, Thomas J.; Baum, Steven K. (1995). "Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO₂ levels". Journal of Geophysical Research. 100 (D1): 1093-1102. Bibcode:1995JGR...100.1093C. doi:10.1029/94JD02521.

55. ^ Hegerl; et al. "Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (pdf Archived 7 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine), in (IPCC AR4 WG1 2007).

56. ^ IPCC (2001). "2.3 Global Futures Scenarios". Climate Change 2001:Synthesis Report. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016..

57. St. Fleur, Nicholas (10 November 2015). "Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels Hit Record, Report Says". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 January 2022.

58. ^ Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7012): 1084-87. Bibcode:2004Natur.431.1084S. doi:10.1038/nature02995. PMID 15510145. S2CID 4373732.

59. ^ "Temperature data (HadCRUT, CRUTEM,, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5) Climatic Research Unit global temperature".

60. ^ Folland; et al. "Chapter 2: Observed Climate Variability and Change". Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Sec. 2.2 How Much is the World Warming?. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014., in IPCC TAR WG1 2001.

61. ^ David, Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate. 19 (12): 2882-95. Bibcode:2006JCli...19.2882P. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.543.2675. doi:10.1175/JCLI3730.1.

62. ^ Menne, Matthew J.; Claude N. Williams, Jr.; Michael A. Palecki (2010). "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research. 115 (D11): D11108. Bibcode:2010JGRD..11511108M. doi:10.1029/2009JD013094. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting...The reason why station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends probably warrants further investigation.

63. ^ Jeff Tollefson (20 October 2011). "Different method, same result: global warming is real". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2011.607. Archived from the original on 14 January 2012.

64. ^ Ding, Qinghua; Eric J. Steig; David S. Battisti; Marcel Küttel (10 April 2011). "Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming". Nature Geoscience. 4 (6): 398-403. Bibcode:2011NatGe...4..398D. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.8689. doi:10.1038/ngeo1129.

65. ^ Doran; et al. (13 January 2002). "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response" (PDF). Nature. University of Illinois at Chicago. 415 (6871): 517-20. doi:10.1038/nature710. PMID 11793010. S2CID 387284. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 July 2012. PDF version: advance online publication Letters to Science (archived original)

66. ^ Michael Crichton (25 January 2005). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming" (PDF). Michael Crichton The official site. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2014. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (restored from archived copy)

67. ^ Comment on 'Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System', Schwartz et al. Journal of Geophysical Research DRAFT September 2007

68. ^ Chylek, P.; Lohmann, U.; Dubey, M.; Mishchenko, M.; Kahn, R. (2007). "Aerosol Optical Depth, Climate Sensitivity and Global Warming". AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2007: A21H-04. Bibcode:2007AGUFM.A21H..04C.

69. ^ Bing Lin; Bruce A. Wielicki; Lin H. Chambers; Yongxiang Hu; Kuan-Man Xu (2002). "The iris hypothesis: a negative or positive cloud feedback?". Journal of Climate. 15 (1): 3-7. Bibcode:2002JCli...15....3L. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0003:TIHANO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0442.

70. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.pdf

71. ^ Steve Connor (16 September 2005). "Global Warming 'Past the Point of No Return'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 3 February 2007.

72. ^ Stott, P., Good, P., Jones, G., Gillett, N. and Hawkins, E (2013). "The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (1): 014024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8a4024S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014024. Available on line here [1], see Figure 4.

73. ^ Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News " Comment On Real Climate's Post On The Relevance Of The Sensitivity Of Initial Conditions In The IPCC Models

74. ^ Joe Barton; Ed Whitfield (23 June 2005). "letter to Michael Mann" (PDF). United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2012.

75. ^ Henry A. Waxman (1 July 2005). "Letter to Chairman Barton" (PDF). Henry Waxman House of Representatives website. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 March 2012.

76. ^ Michael E. Mann (15 July 2005). "Letter to Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield" (PDF). RealClimate. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 July 2011.

77. ^ Alan I. Leshner (13 July 2005). "www.aaas.org" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 February 2011.

78. ^ Trenberth, Kevin (2001). "The IPCC Assessment of global warming 2001". Journal of the Forum for Environmental Law, Science, Engineering, and Finance (8-26). Archived from the original on 6 December 2006.

79. ^ "Global Warming, the Anatomy of a Debate: A speech by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute". Archived from the original on 24 January 2012.

80. ^ Nicholas Stern (2006). "7. Projecting the Growth of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions". In Stern, Nicolas (ed.). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70080-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 October 2007.

81. ^ Will, George, "When Bambi becomes Godzilla Archived 9 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine", The Denver Post, 5 September 2010.

82. ^ Darragh, Ian (1998). "A Guide to Kyoto: Climate Change and What it Means to Canadians: Does the Kyoto treaty go far enough... or too far?" (PDF). International Institute for Sustainable Development. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 June 2007.

83. ^ Singer, S. Fred (24 May 2000). Climate Policy - From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000-and Beyond. Essays in Public Policy, No. 102. Stanford University: Hoover Institution. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-8179-4372-1. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007.

84. ^ Atkinson, Giles; Hamilton, Kirk; Ruta, Giovanni; Van Der Mensbrugghe, Dominique (1 May 2011). "Trade in 'virtual carbon': Empirical results and implications for policy". Global Environmental Change. 21 (2): 563-574. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.009. ISSN 0959-3780.

85. ^ "GCC Suffers Technical Knockout, Industry defections decimate Global Climate Coalition".

86. ^ "globalclimate.org". Global Climate. 19 April 2003. Archived from the original on 19 April 2003.

87. ^ Gillis, Justin; Schwartz, John (21 February 2015). "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 January 2022.

88. ^ Naomi Oreskes; Erik Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. US: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.

89. ^ Clive Hamilton (2010). Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change. Allen & Unwin. pp. 103-105. ISBN 978-1-74237-210-5.

90. ^ Monbiot, George (19 September 2006). "The denial industry". The Guardian. London. By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.

91. ^ Adam, David (27 January 2005). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". The Guardian. London.

92. John Plimer, ^ Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science (London: Quartet, 2009). ISBN 978-0704371668; for a "hard talk" interview with Plimer, see James Randerson, "How Climate Change Sceptic Ian Plimer Dodges Valid Criticism", Guardian (14 Dec. 2009): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer

93. ^ Gelbspan, Ross (December 1995). "The Heat Is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007.

94. ^ Lindzen, Richard S.; Constantine Giannitsis (2002). "Reconciling observations of global temperature change" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters. 29 (12): 24-1-24-3. Bibcode:2002GeoRL..29.1583L. doi:10.1029/2001GL014074. S2CID 2164754. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2007.

95. ^ Bailey, Ronald (2 February 2007). "Global Warming-Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough". . Archived from the original on 10 April 2007.

96. ^ Harrison, Paul; Pearce, Fred (2000). "Foreword by Peter H. Raven". In Victoria Dompka Markham (ed.). AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment. American Association for the Advancement of Science & University of California Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-520-23081-1.

97. ^ Logan, Andrew; Grossman, David (May 2006). "ExxonMobil's Corporate Governance on Climate Change" (PDF). Ceres & Investor Network on Climate Risk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 September 2006.

98. ^ "Letter to Michael J. Boskin, Secretary Exxon Mobil Corporation" (PDF). Investor Network on Climate Risk. 15 May 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 September 2006.

99. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (3 June 2002). "Bush climate plan says adapt to inevitable Cutting gas emissions not recommended". San Francisco Chronicle.

100. ^ Schwartz, Peter; Randall, Doug (February 2004). "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security". Global Business Network for the Department of Defense. Archived from the original on 18 February 2007.

101. ^ Engineering, and Public Policy (U. S.) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming Committee on Science (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. National Academies Press. p. 944. ISBN 978-0-309-04386-1.

102. Campbell, D. (20 June 2003) ^ "White House cuts global warming from report" The Guardian

103. Donaghy, T., ^ et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Massachusetts: UCS Publications)

104. Rule, E. (2005) "Possible media attention" Email to NOAA staff, 27 July. ^ Obtained via FOIA request on 31 July 2006. and Teet, J. (2005) "DOC Interview Policy" Email to NOAA staff, 29 September. Originally published by Alexandrovna, L. (2005) "Commerce Department tells National Weather Service media contacts must be pre-approved" Archived 19 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine The Raw Story, 4 October. Retrieved 22 December 2006.

105. Eilperin, J. (6 April 2006) ^ "Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House" The Washington Post

106. ^ Donaghy, Timothy; Freeman, Jennifer; Grifo, Francesca; Kaufman, Karly; Maassarani, Tarek; Shultz, Lexi (February 2007). "Appendix A: UCS Climate Scientist Survey Text and Responses (Federal)" (PDF). Atmosphere of Pressure - Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. Union of Concerned Scientists & Government Accountability Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2013.

107. ^ "Judge Dismisses Ken Cuccinelli's Misguided Investigation of Michael Mann | Union of Concerned Scientists". Archived from the original on 2 September 2010.

108. ^ Pidot, Justin R. (2006). "Global Warming in the Courts - An Overview of Current Litigation and Common Legal Issues" (PDF). Georgetown University Law Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 June 2007.

109. ^ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV0.wpd.pdf

110. ^ The Sierra Club vs. Stephen L. Johnson (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 03-10262 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 20 January 2006).

Ipcc ar4 syr (2007). Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; Reisinger, A. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.

Ipcc ar4 wg1 (2007). Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H.L. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1. (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Ipcc tar syr (2001). Watson, R. T.; the Core Writing Team (eds.). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80770-0. Archived from the original on 3 November 2018. (pb: 0-521-01507-3)

Ipcc tar wg1 (2001). Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80767-8. Archived from the original on 15 December 2019. (pb: 0-521-01495-6)

Ipcc sar wg3 (1996). Bruce, J.P.; Lee, H.; Haites, E.F. (eds.). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-56051-1. (pb: 0-521-56854-4) pdf Archived 11 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action can or should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Friends Committee on National Legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drones are quickly becoming one of the U.S. military's primary weapons as the U.S. counterterrorism shifts from engaging in traditional, specified armed conflicts to targeting and killing individuals regardless of their location. Here's what you need to know.

What are drones?

Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as "drones" are aerial systems that can be remotely controlled for short and long range military and civilian purposes. Drones are usually equipped with a camera and can also be armed with missiles. While surveillance drones lead to privacy and civil liberties concerns, FCNL focuses primarily on the use of lethal drone strikes.

How does the United States use drones?

The use of drones by the United States government is constantly evolving. Currently, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) oversees the targeted killing program which utilizes drones to strike individuals across the globe including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and the Philippines.

How many drones does the U.S. have? How much do drones cost?

According to recent reports, the Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. The fiscal year 2016 budgetincluded $2.9 billion for drone research, development, and procurement. This figure represents the known costs; it does not include funding that may be classified. The CIA has about 30 Predator and Reaper drones, which are operated by Air Force pilots from a U.S. military base in an unnamed U.S. state. The Department of Homeland Security has at least ten unarmed Predator drones, costing approximately $62 million a year. The cost per flight hour varies by type of drone. Predator and Reaper drones cost about $2,500-3,500 per flight hour; larger armed systems such as the military's Global Hawk cost about 10 times as much: approximately $30,000 per flight hour.

Who do the drones target?

Drone strikes typically target individuals who have been placed on a "kill list" by the administration in a secret process that is not subject to oversight or transparency.

Other strikes known as "signature strikes" are based on vague, suspicious patterns of behavior such as being a man of a particular age or being in a particular location. News reports typically fail to investigate descriptions such as "militants" when describing the known victims of drone strikes. Upon closer inspection, the rationale often crumbles. For example, one official told the New York Times that the CIA could see "three guys doing jumping jacks" and consider them to be a part of a terrorist training camp.

What is Congress' role regarding drones?

Congress' primary role with respect to the U.S. drones program has been funding research and development and procurement by the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security. Congress has exercised little or no oversight related to the tactical or strategic use of drones. Written immediately after the attacks on September 11th, the 60 words that make up the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave the executive branch unprecedented war powers, and has been used to justify drones strikes across the world. Congress has subsequently failed to adequately question the administration for information regarding drones. In 2014, Senator Ron Wyden led the effort to ask for more transparency on U.S. drone policy, but only two other Senators-Mark Udall and Martin Heinrich-signed onto his letter. As a comparison, there were nearly 50 members of Congress on the pro-drones caucus last year. It is now chaired by Rep. Joe Heck (NV) and Daniel Lipinski (IL).

What is the administration's role regarding drones?

At the National Defense University in 2013, the President reminded Americans that the current decision to use drones will ultimately "define the type of nation-and world-that we leave to our children." According to press reports, however, President Obama personally oversees a so called "kill list" that details who is to be targeted. While the President has called for " strong oversight of all lethal action," the administration has yet to release details regarding the aforementioned list. In particular, the administration has failed to share what criteria is currently being used to place individuals on the list, how "signature killings" meet that criteria, and who ultimately approves that list.

What are the long-term implications of the use of drones?

With the lack of overarching strategy, many mistakenly see drones as a low cost-human and financial-alternative to war. By deviating from conventional authorized and specified wars that start and stop, the drones program allows the U.S. to remain in a constant state of endless war. This shifts the strikes into covert operations with little or no congressional or public oversight, and operating outside of legal norms.

Drones and "Blowback"

Evidence suggests that the trauma of living under drones causes anti-American resentment and aids in the recruitment for violent extremism. According to a former State Department official, for every drone strike, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies. Such long term damage is known as "blowback" - incidents that arise in later years as an unintended consequence of actions taken today.

Effects on Drone Pilots

This new form of war has also had unprecedented effects back home; not only do drone pilots experience mental health problems at the same rate as their counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan, recent studies suggest that drone pilots may be experiencing a new form of psychological strain-a long distance version of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). Despite working thousands of miles from the battlefield, many drone pilots experience anxiety, depression, and severe stress. Moreover, citing extraneous hours-often between 900 and 1,800 hours a year, compared to the maximum 300 hours that regular Air Force pilots work-drone pilots are quitting in record numbers.

The Future of Drones and Warfare

It is time to pause and evaluate the potential outcomes of this policy. Currently, hundreds of companies are developing small and large scale drone technology. At last count, more than 50 countries are developing drones, and more than 70 countries have already acquired various types. Experts suggest that every country will possess the ability to create or acquire armed droneswithin ten years. This February, the Obama administration announced that it would soon allow for the export of armed drones to allies.

If drones lower the threshold for war, what happens when everyone has drones? What happens when the United States no longer has a monopoly on this technology? The U.S., in conjunction with the international community, will benefit from recognizing this potential and beginning to outline restrictions and accountability for drone use. Restricting the use of drones worldwide is undoubtedly in the best interest of a more peaceful world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drones are quickly becoming one of the U.S. military's primary weapons as the U.S. counterterrorism shifts from engaging in traditional, specified armed conflicts to targeting and killing individuals regardless of their location. Here's what you need to know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These 5 Marine Animals are Dying Because of our Plastic Trash

Mitchell Adolphson * Feb 05, 2017

Over the years plastic has been integrated into our every day lives. While it does provide many services, our overwhelming daily use of plastic is having a negative impact on marine life and conservation. It's estimated that at least 100 million marine mammals are killed each year from plastic. The moment our plastic enters the water it can cause harm. Marine Conservation and healthy marine mammals should be high on our list of priorities

To read more on this and to learn about the top 5 marine animals dying from plastic click the link below.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/marine-animals-are-dying-because-of-our-plastic-trash...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These 5 Marine Animals are Dying Because of our Plastic Trash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mitchell Adolphson * Feb 05, 2017 Over the years plastic has been integrated into our every day lives. While it does provide many services, our overwhelming daily use of plastic is having a negative impact on marine life and conservation. It's estimated that at least 100 million marine mammals are killed each year from plastic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats and Republicans have starkly different priorities when it comes to the nation's immigration policies. Yet there also are ideological differences within both parties on the importance of some priorities, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say it is very or somewhat important to establish a way for most immigrants in the country illegally to remain here legally, according to the survey, which comes as the Supreme Court evaluates the Trump administration's decision to end a program that has protected from deportation nearly 800,000 unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.

And while 82% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say this is a very or somewhat important goal, only about half of Republicans and Republican leaners (48%) say the same.

Sizable majorities of Americans also rate other policy goals as important: 68% say it is very or somewhat important to increase security along the U.S.-Mexico border, and 73% say it is important to take in refugees escaping war and violence. The public is more closely divided on the importance of increasing deportations of unauthorized immigrants, with 54% saying this is a very or somewhat important goal and 45% saying it is not too or not at all important.

The survey, conducted Sept. 3 to 15, comes amid some recent shifts in immigration patterns. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the number of migrant apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border reached its highest level since 2007. At the same time, the number of refugees being resettled into the U.S. is at its lowest point in nearly four decades, with further cuts expected in the current fiscal year.

Partisan, ideological differences

Views of immigration policy goals are sharply divided along partisan and ideological lines. Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to emphasize the importance of increasing border security and increasing deportations. Meanwhile, more Democrats than Republicans view providing a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants and taking in refugees as very or somewhat important goals.

About nine-in-ten Republicans (91%) say that increasing border security is very or somewhat important, with seven-in-ten (70%) calling this a very important goal.

Conservative Republicans (who make up about two-thirds of all Republicans and Republican leaners) are especially likely to view this as an important goal, with 81% in this group saying that increasing security is very important, compared with 52% among moderate and liberal Republicans.

About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (49%) rate increased border security as an important policy goal. Among Democrats, conservatives and moderates (who make up roughly half of Democrats and Democratic leaners) are more likely than liberal Democrats to rate this as a very or somewhat important goal (60% vs. 37%).

The divide between partisans is even larger when it comes to increased deportations of unauthorized immigrants. Around eight-in-ten Republicans (83%) say that increasing deportations is important, including 51% who say it is very important. Among Democrats, only around three-in-ten (31%) call this an important goal, and just 10% call it very important.

Majorities of both partisan groups say that taking in refugees fleeing war and violence is an important goal. Nonetheless, more Democrats (85%) view it as important than Republicans (58%). About half of Democrats (47%) say that taking in refugees is very important, compared with just 15% of Republicans.

Liberal Democrats, in particular, emphasize the importance of allowing unauthorized immigrants to stay and admitting refugees into the country. Majorities of liberal Democrats say that each goal is very important (56% and 58%, respectively), compared with about four-in-ten conservative and moderate Democrats in each case (39% and 38%).

Shifting views on refugees

Views on these immigration priorities have changed somewhat over the past three years. Since 2016, Americans have become slightly more likely to say it's important to establish a way for those here illegally to stay in the country - and they have become slightly less likely to say it's important to increase deportations.

The most notable change has occurred in attitudes toward taking in refugees. In the earlier survey, 61% said that admitting refugees escaping war and violence was a very or somewhat important goal. In the new survey, the share has increased to 73%.

Shifting views among Republicans account for most of this increase. In 2016, 40% of Republicans said admitting refugees was an important goal. Today, a majority of Republicans (58%) hold this view. The share of Republicans who now say admitting refugees should be a somewhat important goal has risen from 28% in 2016 to 43% today. The proportion who say this should be a very important goal has remained essentially the same (13% in 2016, 15% today).
Note: See full topline results and methodology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats and Republicans have starkly different priorities when it comes to the nation's immigration policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Humans are to blame" - James Renwick
James Renwick is a lead author for the IPCC and a weather and climate researcher and Professor of Physical Geography at Victoria University.
The majority of the population recognises Climate Change and Global Warming, as common parlance, but few are certain of what they truly mean. One of many avid researchers trying to change this is James Renwick, a climate and weather researcher, and Professor of Physical Geography at Victoria University, who has studied the happenings of our planet for over 30 years.

Renwick puts it simply: the term Global Warming comes from the fact that the globe is, literally, warming. Yet Climate Change is a more commonly used expression because it serves as an umbrella term for the entire scope of the issue, generally referring to the rising temperature's knock-on effects - including the change in seasons, weather systems, and ice numbers.

The fact that the world's climate is changing is evident, and, in terms of the composition of the atmosphere, we are in a completely unprecedented state. Indeed, whether you are a climate researcher or not, the evidence is compelling. Global temperatures, according to Renwick, "have risen about one degree in the past 100 years," while periods of abnormally hot weather are swiftly becoming commonplace. This year's record-breaking heatwaves in Europe are a testament to that alone, while melting ice caps and forest fires in unusual places (Norway's rampaging fires have been fuelled by the country's lack of rain and rising temperatures) can hardly be ascribed to normal Earthly behaviour.

A subject that's a little more up for debate is not whether or not Climate Change is happening, but why. Something which, if Renwick is anything to go by, is blindingly obvious. "There's nothing going on in the natural world, beyond what humans are doing, that can explain why the globe is warming up," he states, going on to describe how the temperature and the climate are only sensitive to two things: the brightness of the sun and greenhouse gases. Researchers like Renwick "know that the sun isn't getting brighter, and we also know that carbon dioxide concentrations are almost 50 percent higher now than they were 100 years ago." It's basic physics, he says, that the gases we produce from burning fossil fuels absorb heat and warm the Earth, so there's no escaping the notion that if we burn more fossil fuels, and add more greenhouse gases to the air, then temperatures are only going to skyrocket further.

It is a big claim to make, attributing the entire changing of the Earth to human behaviour alone. But, the evidence is irrefutable and is widely accepted by the research community. So much so that the last report in 2013 produced by the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - stated that there is at least a 95 percent chance that most of the warming since the middle of the 20th century can be attributed to humans producing greenhouse gases. It's not quite 100 percent, explains Renwick, "because there are a few natural events going on" that make a difference over decades, but it is humans that remain an extremely likely cause.

In regards to the future of our planet, if we continue to carry on producing greenhouse gases at the rate that we are currently, we would have put enough C02 in the atmosphere by 2030 to guarantee one and a half degree warming, and enough by 2040 to guarantee a two degree warming.

It would take another five to ten years for the temperatures to rise to those levels, but they would be locked in by 2030 and 2040, if we do nothing to reduce emissions. For New Zealand specifically, this would bring a whole host of issues. Not only would we be looking at far warmer temperatures and drier conditions in the summer - which in turn would exaggerate the risk of forest fires - but rising sea levels would mean that those living on the coast may need to retreat inland, a potential financial disaster for those who have sunk their savings into waterfront homes or baches.

High tide lines, according to Renwick, will be 50 or 60 more metres inland by the end of the century. He warns of many public health dangers too, explaining how, as the climate becomes more tropical, the country will be able to cater to more tropical pests that are capable of bringing a whole raft of new diseases.

On a global scale, not only can we expect rising sea levels and hotter days, but far more extreme weather incidents, too. Tropical storms like cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons will rampage harder and longer,
as they, explains Renwick, will be able to feed off the rising energy and temperatures.
"It's a natural cycle" - Doug Edmeades
Dr Doug Edmeades, MSc (Hons), PhD. Dip Management, ONZM - prominent soil scientist and head of agKnowledge Ltd.
It's a scary future we're possibly facing, but one that doesn't necessarily have to come to fruition. To stop the Earth's temperatures at 1.5 degrees, Renwick explains, "we need to halve the rate of emissions globally by 2030, before arriving at zero emissions by 2050." It sounds like a difficult feat, but it isn't an impossible one. "It's simple, really. As soon as we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the climate will stop changing. There will be a bit of a lag, and we might get another tenth of a degree, but the warming would stop in a decade or so." And there's nothing stopping us, he attests, as we already have the solutions. "We have the technology already, as far as solar panels and things go," he explains, "we just need the political will."

Above all, Renwick is adamant that we have the power to stop Climate Change. It is a very real, very serious problem, with "the potential for disaster around the world" being huge, but one that can be avoided if we just pull our heads out of the sand. The future of the planet is undeniably in our hands and it's time, Renwick explains, that we took action.

Edmeades, a prominent soil scientist and Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit - whose accolades include an ANZAC Fellowship, an Arthur Yates award and a Landcorp Communicator of the Year award, amongst others - is a Climate Change sceptic, part of a wider scope of sceptics called the Climate Change Coalition.

He doesn't refute Climate Change itself as the process is evident whether you are a scientist or not. Rather, he is unconvinced that the reason for the rise in global temperatures is down to the activity of humans, more specifically, human-produced greenhouse gases. The reasons why he is sceptical about this hypothesis (despite it being widely accepted as true), are vast and varied, and contain a huge amount of what he dubs, "serious science." Here, we delve into a few of them.

First of all, Edmeades explains, the climate has always changed. "These changes took place long before man was on the planet, and long before he learned about coal and oil," he says, describing how, while this does not disprove the current global warming hypothesis, it does strongly suggest there are other mechanisms at play that are controlling the global temperature.

This includes, according to Edmeades, the sun. "In our recent past the world has been warmer - with the Medieval Warm Period between 950-1250 - and colder - via the Little Ice Age, which took place between 1700-1850 - than it is today." In the last 100 years we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age and thus, the temperature warming, ice caps melting and sea levels rising over the past hundreds of years are all consistent, as far as Edmeades is concerned, with the natural cycle of our planet.

In regards to recent temperatures, Edmeades is adamant that there is nothing new to report. "Our best measurement of the temperature on earth isn't from land-based thermometers, it's from the satellites which run around the world going over the water and the land. This data shows no significant warming in the last 20 years."

Now, if you talk to those who believe in human-induced Climate Change - and Edmeades has - they will say that you need at least 20 years of data before you can determine what the climate trend is over time. If the recent data does, in fact, say that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 20 years - despite an increase in global CO concentrations - that would then correlate with Edmeades' theory that we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age, and that process has now peaked.

This is one of many points that Edmeades makes in his paper, "Is the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change correct?" (Which can easily be found on the Internet.) A paper which he has sent to people on both sides of the argument - including the media - specifically inviting them to identify flaws in his logic. He is still yet to receive any form of response.

It's the media, according to Edmeades, that's partially to blame. In his opinion, it's the fourth estate that sensationalises Climate Change, often dishing out misleading information to the public. Examples of this can be spotted when watching the news. Surely, you will have seen those TV reports on Climate Change, delivered alongside an image displaying chimneys belching out ominous, thick, white fog. This, according to Edmeades, isn't an entirely accurate depiction. "Those plumes of gas are not CO, because CO is actually colourless."

So what about the freak weather events - increasing tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis - that get paired alongside Climate Change in news reports, "The IPCC themselves" - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - "say that there is no relationship between the warming of the planet and the incidents of extreme weather. None whatsoever."

It is the IPCC, too, that Edmeades doesn't believe has much credibility. Take the IPCC report of 2001, for example. It claimed that the warming in the late 20th Century was unprecedented and that it was most likely to be due to greenhouse gases. Central to this conclusion was the infamous "hockey stick graph".

This graph was first published in a 1999 paper by Michael Mann, and later used to shock audiences in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and showed how temperatures over the last 2000 years had been steady, until the 20th century when they skyrocketed, thus creating a 'hockey stick' shape when displayed on a graph. "This graph has been exposed as a mathematical fabrication," he explains, "most obviously, it contradicts the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age - for which there is ample global evidence."

Edmeades has tried "damn hard" to get the appropriate academic institutions to look at the issue of Climate Change fairly and squarely, even writing to the Royal Society of New Zealand to ask "whether they would facilitate a proper debate on the subject," to which they usually respond with a statement saying that they don't have the time.

Above all, Edmeades is open to being proved wrong, he is a sceptic as opposed to an aggressive denier. "Show me the data that says humans are affecting the normal cycles of warming and cooling on the planet," he says "and I'll believe it." That data, according to Edmeades, is still yet to surface.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Climate Change Debate: We look at two different sides of the argument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Humans are to blame" - James Renwick James Renwick is a lead author for the IPCC and a weather and climate researcher and Professor of Physical Geography at Victoria University. The majority of the population recognises Climate Change and Global Warming, as common parlance, but few are certain of what they truly mean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unmanned aerial vehicles ( UAVs) are aircraft with no on-board crew or passengers. They can be automated 'drones' or remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs). UAV's can fly for long periods of time at a controlled level of speed and height and have a role in many aspects of aviation.

The first pilotless vehicles were developed in Britain and the USA during the First World War. Britain's Aerial Target, a small radio-controlled aircraft, was first tested in March 1917 while the American aerial torpedo known as the Kettering Bug first flew in October 1918. Although both showed promise in flight tests, neither were used operationally during the war.

During the inter-war period the development and testing of unmanned aircraft continued. In 1935 the British produced a number of radio-controlled aircraft to be used as targets for training purposes. It's thought the term 'drone' started to be used at this time, inspired by the name of one of these models, the DH.82B Queen Bee. Radio-controlled drones were also manufactured in the United States and used for target practice and training.

Reconnaissance UAVs were first deployed on a large scale in the Vietnam War. Drones also began to be used in a range of new roles, such as acting as decoys in combat, launching missiles against fixed targets and dropping leaflets for psychological operations.

Following the Vietnam War other countries outside of Britain and the United States began to explore unmanned aerial technology. New models became more sophisticated, with improved endurance and the ability to maintain greater height. In recent years models have been developed that use technology such as solar power to tackle the problem of fuelling longer flights.

Drones now have many functions, ranging from monitoring climate change to carrying out search operations after natural disasters, photography, filming, and delivering goods. But their most well-known and controversial use is by the military for reconnaissance, surveillance and targeted attacks. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States in particular has significantly increased its use of drones. They are mostly used for surveillance in areas and terrains where troops are unable to safely go. But they are also used as weapons and have been credited with killing suspected militants. Their use in current conflicts and over some countries has raised questions about the ethics of this kind of weaponry, especially when it results in civilian deaths, either due to inaccurate data or because of their proximity to a 'target'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first pilotless vehicles were built during the First World War but drones now have many functions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The issue on illegal immigration has been facing America for so many years and currently, there are about more than 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, with a million entering the country as legal immigrants on a yearly basis. More than half of this aliens are those who have entered legally but extended their stay without filing for extension. The rest have made their way through borders and risked their lives cramped in trucks and literally crossing the borders.

Despite this, the government is still trying to make things good for illegal immigrants and the country as well. Policies have been changing over the years, with President Obama giving amnesty decrees granting illegal immigration law exemptions to a certain percentage of undocumented aliens.

What Is Illegal Immigration?

This is the migration of foreigners to a country who are not legally eligible to migrate or extend their stay for more than a given period yet they refuse to leave. According to the United States Department of Home Security, people involved in illegal immigration are those non-US residents who either cross the borders without inspection or people who were given visas to stay for awhile but instead of leaving, they overstay.

This controversy had been viewed from different angles by two groups, the proponents and opponents are debating whether this is good for the United States or not.

Here are some benefits and setbacks supporters and critics shared about this issue.

List of the Pros of Illegal Immigration

1. It helps the economy.
According to supporters, illegal immigrants work for cheaper labor and are often hardworking people because they are saving money to bring back to their families. With more than enough labor force, businesses can increase production and reach their targeted sales. If businesses are booming, it is also good for the economy.

2. Undocumented aliens are willing to take all kinds of jobs.
With the goal of making it in the land of milk and honey, an undocumented alien can work at jobs the average American will not be willing to take. This way, goods and services will be delivered on time. When it comes to doing household chores, cleaning, feeding the pets and taking care of an adult in need of care and attention, an illegal immigrant can take on these types of jobs. And knowing how busy working Americans are, it helps to get support from someone. This is also applicable to meet the needs of an impaired adult.

3. Illegal immigrants who work also pay taxes.
Some illegal aliens who have managed to get jobs in home care, restaurants and automobile shops pay revenue to the agency. But doing so, having them stay illegally somehow allows them to compensate the government, one way of the other. Also they have to open back accounts and buy necessities like automobiles. The money and taxes they pay help the U.S. economy.

4. Undocumented aliens contribute to a richer culture and biodiversity.
For some, having mixed cultures in a country is a good thing. This is why they are in favor of illegal immigration because these immigrants bring in their culture and skills to the nation.

5. Deporting these illegal immigrants can cost the government so it is better to let the stay.
There are supporters who claim that if all the people who are overstaying in America will be deported, it will cause a lot and it is never that easy. This expense is not the kind of money the United States can afford. Besides, there are other issues that America needs to focus on other than illegal aliens.

List of Cons of Illegal Immigration

1. The threat of terrorism and crimes.
Opponents of illegal immigration argue that America is faced with national issues such as threats of terrorism. Although not all are terrorists and bad people, there are some who come to the U.S. to havoc fear and commit crimes like drug-trafficking and illegal activities. There have also been reports of more than a hundred cases of crimes related to illegal immigrants.

2. Illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans.
Critics of illegal immigration are rallying over the policies of the government regarding this controversy. They say that because of the influx of illegal workers, more and more Americans remain unemployed because employers sometimes favor illegal immigrants over legal residents because of cheap labor and longer working hours.

3. Illegal immigration costs money.
Opponents contend that taxpayers' money is spent in paying for border patrol and deportation. This is one of the complaints of groups against illegal immigration. They also raise that poor illegal immigrants medical expenses are paid for by the government and this money come for taxpayers as well. Unauthorized aliens who get sick or give birth on American soil have to be given medical attention even without insurance and money to cover for hospital bills at the expense of the American taxpayers. Moreover, children of illegal immigrants waiting to be deported need to be taken care and this requires money.

4. Undocumented aliens add to the population.
Those who are not happy with illegal immigration complain that with the increasing number of illegal immigrants and some with children, more people add to overcrowding buses and trains as well as students granted with scholarships which should be given to legal immigrants, these situations are not favorable to most of the people.

5. Illegal immigration is a law violation.
Some critics are fuelled with the fact that amnesty is granted to illegal aliens. They say that this is an act that should not be tolerated. These people came illegally and should not be allowed to stay longer. They are in violation of the law because letting them stay will only encourage them to do other illegal doings.

Conclusion

The debatable issue on illegal immigration is not about to end with the developments taking place as time passes on. Contentions from two opposing groups will still be present as policies are ever changing and immigrants keep on coming from different parts of the world. Government leaders and different sectors who are affected with the issue should take these things in consideration to come up with clear-cut solutions to illegal immigration.

About the Author
Brandon Miller has a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a seasoned writer who has written over one hundred articles, which have been read by over 500,000 people. If you have any comments or concerns about this blog post, then please contact the Green Garage team here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Critical Pros and Cons of Illegal Immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The issue on illegal immigration has been facing America for so many years and currently, there are about more than 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, with a million entering the country as legal immigrants on a yearly basis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The controversial issue of illegal immigrants in the United States has divided Americans for decades, and the problem is only becoming more and more prevalent. There are currently well over 10 million people in America who are living here undocumented, or illegal. While many systems and government aid programs are burdened by this influx of unregistered people, there are certainly benefits to their presence as well. By breaking down the true pros and cons of illegal immigration we can have a much better understanding and form an educated opinion on this hot button issue.

The Pros of Illegal Immigration

1. Helps To Boost The Economy
While these illegal immigrants may be here without the proper documentation, that doesn't mean that they don't contribute to the economy. Illegal immigrants still have to purchase goods in order to survive, and on all of these goods they are required to pay taxes. These taxes benefit the entire country.

2. Provides Inexpensive Labor
Because they often do not speak english, or do not speak english well, and cannot get a normal job due to the fact that they don't have the proper forms of identification, illegal immigrants make up a large part of the manual labor job force in the country. Whether it be construction, landscaping, or other forms of housework, these people provide a labor force at much cheaper prices.

3. Add Cultural Influence
America has long been known as the melting pot, this is because they have a rich history of embracing immigrants from all over the world. Today is much different, a large portion of people are enraged at these people coming to our country. However, there is no denying the fact that they bring a tremendous amount of culture richness and diversity.

4. A Hope For A Better Future
The sole reason that people from other countries migrate here illegally is for the hope of a better life. The United States offers an incredible amount of opportunities to people of all backgrounds. The safety of many of these people's home countries is very poor as well. Crime runs rampant, which is another huge driving force bringing them to come here illegally.

5. Doing It Legally Is Very Difficult
The process of becoming a legal citizen to the United States is not an easy one. There are tests that must be passed, fees to be paid, paperwork to be filed. However, the biggest hurdle of all is the simple fact of time. There are extensive waiting lists that people are placed on when applying for citizenship. It also puts you at risk for deportation at any time, which is the biggest fear for most illegal immigrants.

The Cons of Illegal Immigration

1. Abuse of Government Programs
If a child is born in America, even if the parents are both illegal immigrants, that child is granted citizenship to the country. Many women come across the border for the sole purpose of having children that can be placed onto federal aid programs. This greatly overburdens our welfare systems, and supports people who do not pay the same portion of taxes as other recipients.

2. Major Judicial Issues Are Emerging
While certainly not all, but a large percentage of illegal immigrants are much more likely to be criminals. This crime is brought into the country, and is very difficult to fix because the culprits are not registered or traceable in the country. Another problem that happens is instead of being tried and punished for their crimes, they will simply flee back to their own country.

3. Susceptible To Abuse And Poor Work Conditions
Illegal immigrants do very hard work, for very little money. They are exploited and taken advantage of because of the basic fact that they are illegal. The fear of being deported, or their family being deported is very real and an everyday struggle to them. Co workers, neighbors, and employers use this against them.

4. Overpopulation Is Very Real
It would be wonderful to take in every single person, from anywhere in the world, simply because they were in need, but this just cannot happen. The population of the United States is consistently and rapidly increasing. Schools, government systems, and many other public services are greatly over burdened as it is. The more people that enter our country, the worse the quality of these systems become.

Important Facts About Illegal Immigration

As of 2013 there are 12.5 million illegal immigrants in America.

The spending and taxes of these immigrants make up a whopping 162 billion dollars of tax revenue each and every year.

Over half of all undocumented people living in the country are Mexican.

3.5 percent of the entire population is illegal immigrants.

Author Biography
Keith Miller has over 25 years of experience as a CEO and serial entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, he has founded several multi-million dollar companies. As a writer, Keith's work has been mentioned in CIO Magazine, Workable, BizTech, and The Charlotte Observer. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our content editing team a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 Biggest Illegal Immigration Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The controversial issue of illegal immigrants in the United States has divided Americans for decades, and the problem is only becoming more and more prevalent. There are currently well over 10 million people in America who are living here undocumented, or illegal.