# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1 (10/22/2019) Political Pressures rolled back globalization before. It can happen again 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1 (10/22/2019) Political Pressures rolled back globalization before. It can happen again 

# data[].attributes.body
This article, is talking about the trade war between the United Stated and China because of the tariffs. People fear that a war may start, the disintegration of the trade system may collapse or economic blocs. The write brings up to points one being that globalization was thought to be permanent and beneficial for people globally. Secondly, was that some argue that it isn't beneficial because other countries don't know how to handle the interconnections of the world. Both China and America want to be on top of the pyramid and are doing what they can to get there.
This article is an example of geological and economic globalization. They are creating an unstable economic system which is affecting both China's  and American consumers and businesses. This can cause uneasiness for people since something more serious like war can come from this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Political pressures rolled back globalization before. It can happen again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S.-China trade war will have major consequences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 (10/22/2019) As seas rise, Indonesia is moving is capital city. Other cities should take note.

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 (10/22/2019) As seas rise, Indonesia is moving is capital city. Other cities should take note.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, is discussing how Indonesia is moving its capital city due to the high rise of sea levels. The land can no longer support the growing population, water shortages, and environmental threats. In 30 years the city Jakarta has sank 10 feet. The write is warning the United States that New Orleans and Norfolk has also began to sink but not nearly as fast as Jakarta.
This article is an example of global migration because at one point these people will need somewhere to live. We need to come up with a solution that will save the livelihoods of people. Economically it can hurt the economy as well since people will be needing to relocate and finding jobs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Residents stay on the second floor of their house amid floodwaters in Jakarta, Indonesia, on April 26 after several areas were affected by heavy rainfall. (Bay Ismoyo/AFP/Getty Images)

John Englander is president of the International Sea Level Institute and author of "High Tide on Main Street."

Indonesia made a stunning announcement this week that it will relocate its capital from Jakarta. The decision validates decades of warnings about the city's catastrophic flood risk due to sinking land and rising seas. While Jakarta is especially vulnerable to the threat of rising seas, it serves as a profound wake-up call for hundreds of major cities, Washington included.

In making his decision, Indonesian President Joko Widodo said that the move is necessary, given that the city can no longer support its massive population in the face of environmental threats, as well as concerns of traffic congestion and water shortages. Surely at the top of his concerns is the fact that the city is sinking, a phenomenon known as subsidence. In the past 30 years, Jakarta sank more than 10 feet - a problem made only worse as the world's great ice sheets melt.

Jakarta is an extreme case, but it is by no means unique. In the United States, major cities such as New Orleans and Norfolk are also subsiding, though not nearly as fast. Even still, all coastal cities must face up to the reality of rising seas. There is no time to waste in planning and adapting to this threat.

Although Miami is often cited as the city most at risk, there are many highly vulnerable - and highly populous - cities around the world, including Mumbai and Calcutta, India; Shanghai; Lagos, Nigeria; Manila; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangkok; Copenhagen; Tokyo; London; Houston; and Tampa. In fact, thousands of coastal cities and rural communities globally are not only at risk, but already experience increased flooding during extreme high tides, often referred to as "king tides. "

The swelling oceans demand that we start designing for and investing in the future now. The latest projections for average global sea-level rise this century range from about three feet to as much as eight. Keeping it to the lower part of that range largely depends on extreme global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases far beyond current efforts. But even a one-foot rise in sea level can dramatically increase coastal flooding. Hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars of assets are at risk.

Indonesia's decision to be proactive is something all coastal cities should do, what I call "intelligent adaptation." Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on futile efforts to protect Jakarta from the dozen rivers that run through it - extending fragile walls never engineered to cope with the present threat - it will now start investing in a new capital city that has a sustainable future.

Meanwhile in the United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently announced that the combination of rising seas and subsidence will render the $14 billion fix to New Orleans's levees inadequate in just four years. Clearly, we need a new strategy, too.

Aggressively reducing carbon emissions could avert the worst scenarios, but sea-level rise probably cannot be stopped this century. The planet has already warmed almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which means ice sheets and glaciers will continue to melt for centuries.

Engineering for greater "resiliency" - the new buzzword - is a great idea to prepare for short-duration flood events such as from hurricanes. But preparing for rising sea level is different and requires adapting to a new normal.

Though it is tempting to procrastinate, cities would be smart to begin their adaptation planning now. By planning for rising sea levels, cities create confidence in their future. Adaptation can be a tremendous economic opportunity.

Coastal communities should be crafting 30-year master plans to positively address the threat, which could take many forms. For example, Washington is on the Potomac, a tidal river, and already experiences occasional flooding during extreme high tides and stormy weather. Rising seas will make that worse, but the city can probably protect itself with various forms of flood barriers on the river. Most vulnerable cities are not so fortunate and will need to look at a full range of options.

In Jakarta, the solution was to move the capital. Even that dramatic decision will not quickly solve the challenges for the 10 million residents. Yet it recognizes a new reality, allowing them to truly invest in the future. It's time for all coastal communities to plan for the future.

The sea is rising. We must rise with the tide.

The Post's View: As the seas rise, Republicans will deserve all the blame their grandchildren assign them

Eugene Robinson: The world is on fire - and Trump is playing with matches

Hilda Heine and Patrick Verkooijen: Don't let rising seas drown the Marshall Islands

Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin: It's time to act on climate change - responsibly

John Kerry: Disband your climate denial panel, Mr. President

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | As seas rise, Indonesia is moving its capital city. Other cities should take note.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Englander is president of the International Sea Level Institute and author of " High Tide on Main Street. " Indonesia made a stunning announcement this week that it will relocate its capital from Jakarta. The decision validates decades of warnings about the city's catastrophic flood risk due to sinking land and rising seas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 (10/22/2019) We really need to wake up quickly: Al Gore warns of a looming food crisis caused by climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 (10/22/2019) We really need to wake up quickly: Al Gore warns of a looming food crisis caused by climate change

# data[].attributes.body
This article, explored the idea of food, sustainable agriculture, and climate change. They discussed how cash crops have had a negative affect on the planet and on the farmers. They identified how corporations are looking only for their short-term gains rather the stability of the planet. They provided solutions like putting policies into place to help the earth in the longer term as well the overall health of humans by using organic products.
This article is an example of industrial globalization because it is directed to how the agriculture corporations are running their business. It is important we take action because food is something every human needs in order to survive. For now, there isn't any strict policies for agriculture businesses to preserve the planet. However, I do believe consumers play a huge role on which direction we may go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former vice president Al Gore backstage at the Time 100 Health Summit in New York in October. (Craig Barritt/Getty Images For Time 100 Health)

CARTHAGE, Tenn. - "I've done so many presentations I just never get nervous anymore, but I was nervous before this one - so much new material," Al Gore said last week as he launched into the latest iteration of "An Inconvenient Truth," the slide show that won him an Oscar, a Nobel Prize and a Grammy. Gore had invited 300 guests - chefs, farmers, food executives and activists - to "The Climate Underground," a two-day conference last week at his family farm here that explored the intersection of food, climate change and sustainable agriculture.

Some 40 panelists, most of them farmers and scientists, took the stage to discuss topics from healthy soil to carbon sequestration, but the main event was Gore's slide show, delivered with his characteristic mix of bravado and humility, detailing the impacts of climate change on food systems worldwide.

Will technology or tradition save the global food supply? Why not both?

"This is in Georgia; a heat wave cooked these apples before they could be harvested," he said, issuing forth rapid-fire examples alongside bone-chilling images and video. "This is the Australia wine region that's going to be untenable. . . . Rice yields in 80 percent of Japan have declined due to the rising temperatures. . . . In nearby Murfreesboro, Tenn., we'll see a quarter decline in soybean yields within the next 30 years."

Gore spent the better part of 90 minutes detailing the pressures of drought, heat, flooding, superstorms, "rain bombs," invasive insects, fungi and bacterial blight on food producers. "We may be approaching a threshold beyond which the agriculture that we've always known cannot support human civilization as we know it," he declared in a low growl. "That's something we need to avoid."

Alice Waters, who Gore said catalyzed his interest in food and who had volunteered to cook the vegetarian lunches served to attendees (using local, seasonal and organic ingredients, natch), said the presentation was bittersweet: "I am deeply depressed. But on the other hand, the solution seems so, so unbelievably transformational. . . . We can restore the health of the planet while also restoring the health of people and communities."

Naomi Starkman, editor-in-chief of Civil Eats, which covers news on sustainable agriculture, was similarly fraught: "Gore spoke with such devastating and fierce clarity, connecting the dots between the ways agriculture is implicated in and impacted by the climate crisis. But it also felt like a hopeful moment wherein agriculture, and farmers in particular, are taking a front-and-central place in solving one of the most urgent issues of our time."

Mark Bittman, the former New York Times food columnist, was more circumspect: "There are ways in which the conversation here isn't quite realistic. Regenerative agriculture is not about increased yield, it's about producing more of the right food in the right ways. ... But kudos to Al Gore for taking it on. There's no more important conversation to have."

I sat down with the former vice president to dive deeper into the details. Edited excerpts of our conversation follow:

Q: The main way most humans will experience climate change is through its impact on food: Is this a fair statement?

A: Ever since 2015, it's been clear that the impact on the food system was underestimated in previous years. And there is a natural resistance that many of us have had to getting too concerned about the food system. Food insecurity had been declining steadily for the last couple of decades, just as extreme poverty had been declining. But in the last couple of years, that too has changed, and the principal reason is the climate crisis.

Africa, by mid-century, will have more people than either China or India. And by end of century, more people than China and India combined. And you combine that with the impact of the climate crisis on subsistence agriculture in Africa, the importance of subsistence agriculture in Africa, the poor quality of the soils, the persistent problems of land tenure, and the economic and social structures that discourage good stewardship of the land, then, wow. We really need to wake up quickly to the serious crisis that could develop there.

We have no idea yet how to feed the planet without frying it

Q: What are the most crucial policy measures that need to be taken to encourage regenerative farming in the U.S. and climate-smart agriculture broadly?

A: We need leadership to completely refocus USDA to completely change the system of farm subsidies to stop the massive subsidies for crops that are not eaten by people, that go to biofuels, that go to animal feed. We should eventually work our way toward a system for compensating farmers for the buildup of soil carbon. That's not possible yet, partly because we are still developing a measurement of soil carbon buildup that is necessary for the confidence of policymakers and voters that this is not some boondoggle. But eventually, that's where we need to be.

Q: On one hand you have Bill Gates saying, "The time has come to reinvent food," and on the other you have Alice Waters and others saying, "Let's de-invent food, let's go back to preindustrial agriculture," essentially. What do you think the role of tech should be?

A: We want a single, magic answer that's going to solve a big, complicated problem, and I think that in agriculture and food and climate, these systemic approaches are usually more likely to be successful. But technology and science has an important role to play. Measuring soil carbon is one. That team at the Salk Institute has a really interesting proposal to modify roots to sequester more suberin, a form of carbon that stays in the soil for a long time. If their hypothesis is correct, the root structures of food plants can be made much more robust in a way that simultaneously sequesters more organic carbon and increases yields. So that's technology that is worth exploring and evaluating.

In general, the solutions in agriculture are more to be found in going back to some traditional approaches that worked but were discarded because of the pressure for short-term profit maximization. And that includes crop rotation. It includes cover crops to put key chemicals and nutrients back in the soil after it's been used for a particular cash crop. It includes rotational grazing, which is not without controversy but has been proven to work, at least on farms of this scale.

Climate change is sapping nutrients from our food - and it could become a global crisis

Q: What role must consumers play in the shift toward sustainable food systems and climate resilience?

A: There's a danger in focusing on consumer behavior. There's a danger of giving the impression that the solutions to the climate crisis have to be shouldered by women and men who care enough about it to change their personal choices. They do. But as important as it is to change a lightbulb, it is way more important to change policies. And in order to change policies, we have to have new policymakers. So the most important role that individuals can play is in taking their concern and passion for a better world into the voting booth and turning out in large numbers to overcome the dominance of our political system by big money.

Q: Some permaculture and regenerative farmers that I met with have said that it's more expensive to farm this way. They can't afford their own products. How do we address that?

A: I don't want to deny the premise of your question, but some regenerative farmers have saved a lot of money on their input costs. Now, how do we develop markets for healthier, organic, regenerative-agriculture food? That's one of the reasons we're incorporating efforts to get school systems and hospitals and nursing homes and long-term care facilities to provide markets for healthier food.

Q: Still, there are real concerns from middle- and low-income consumers that this is an elitist movement.

A: It hasn't been very many years since solar panels were considered an elitist movement. And you heard exactly the same critique. "For those who can afford them, that's fine. But don't tell me that's going to be a significant development, because only the wealthy elite are doing it." Well, that's not true anymore, because that was the beginning of a movement that drove scale and accelerated the cost reduction curve. And now you've got people putting rooftop solar on and community solar, and it is really taking off dramatically. But it started as an elitist movement. The same thing is beginning to be true of electric vehicles. If we can democratize and widely distribute the soil carbon assessment technologies, I don't think it's that hard to imagine technology driving the cost down to the point where this can spread more rapidly.

Q: The agriculture industry is so interesting because it is a major driver of the climate problem, but it is also more vulnerable than any other industry to the pressures of climate change.

A: Many pioneers of regenerative agriculture are finding that their farms are more resilient to drought and flood and extreme weather than with the older established farming techniques. Building the health of the soil does not mean just more organic carbon. It also means building the ability of the soil to absorb the higher rainfall events and to withstand drought events more effectively.

Q: One scientist said to me the most delicious fruits are dying because the specialist crops, the ones that we love the most, are hardest to adapt to new circumstances. Of all the crops that are most vulnerable, which would be the hardest for you to live without?

A: Chocolate. Cacao. Absolutely.

Little is author of "The Fate of Food: What We'll Eat in a Bigger, Hotter, Smarter World" (Harmony, 2019).

Have questions about cooking? Join our live chat Wednesdays at 12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'We really need to wake up quickly': Al Gore warns of a looming food crisis caused by climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CARTHAGE, Tenn. - "I've done so many presentations I just never get nervous anymore, but I was nervous before this one - so much new material," Al Gore said last week as he launched into the latest iteration of "An Inconvenient Truth," the slide show that won him an Oscar, a Nobel Prize and a Grammy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4 (10/22/2019) No refugees allowed? Trumps plan to give states and cities veto prompts an outcry

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4 (10/22/2019) No refugees allowed? Trumps plan to give states and cities veto prompts an outcry

# data[].attributes.body
This article is it state how Texas has been welcoming to refugees. However, a new policy may change that by the Trump administration requiring for states to have it in writing before allowing people to come in to resettle. Trump argues that it gives states and cities their right to allow who they want to come in. While Andrew Yang disagrees and believes this could be a new era of segregation.
This is a global migration issue that we have discussed in class. It can create instability with other countries and it can affect our economy. Refugees can be an asset to the United States because they can join the labor market and be productive in our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Members of the Syrian People Solidarity Group protest in 2015 in Austin. The group objected to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's refusal to allow Syrian refugees in the state. (Erich Schlegel/Getty Images)

No state in America resettled more refugees in the past year than Texas. And in the state capital, the mayor says the influx has been a boon.

"It's brought in industrious, hard-working people. It's brought greater exposure to the world and to different cultures," Austin Mayor Steve Adler said. "It's a positive for the community."

But it may end. Under policy changes announced by the Trump administration late last month, Adler's neighbor in the governor's mansion could opt to block refugee admissions to Texas next year. Trump's executive order requires state and local governments to consent in writing before people can arrive, meaning a state could ban refugees even when a city is prepared to welcome them, and vice versa.

That veto power is unprecedented in the history of U.S. refugee resettlements.

Trump highlighted the change at a Thursday night rally in Minneapolis, blaming Washington for bringing in a large number of Somalis - a remark that prompted many in the crowd to jeer their refugee neighbors.

"You should be able to decide what is best for your own cities and for your own neighborhoods, and that's what you have the right to do right now," Trump said as images of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who came to the United States from Somalia as a refugee, flashed overhead. "And believe me, no other president would be doing that."

But critics - including governors, mayors and resettlement managers - say the move is potentially crippling for a program long seen as the global gold standard but now reeling under assault from a hostile White House. They also say it opens the door to more demagoguery by Trump, increasingly emulated by others.

"This is another sign the administration is looking to absolutely decimate the refugee resettlement program," said Jenny Yang, vice president for policy at World Relief, an evangelical Christian organization that helps new arrivals get their start in the United States.

Trump administration slashes refugee limit for the third consecutive year to a historic low of 18,000

The new policy, Yang said, will give politicians looking to whip up xenophobic sentiment the chance to "decide who lives in their community based purely on immigration status."

"That's extremely alarming," Yang said. "It harks back to the days of segregation."

Many details of how the refugee ban will work, and who will get to implement it on behalf of a state or local government, are still being worked out amid a 90-day period to formulate the new policy.

So far, officials have been cautious about saying whether they will exercise the veto. None of the 27 Republican governors and other state officeholders contacted by The Post said definitively that they would move to block refugees. But several said they support giving states that right.

"There is an array of challenges - financial, legal and public safety, to name a few - that states or localities face when compelled to accommodate refugee populations," said the office of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall. "States deserve to be heard before those decisions are made."

A spokesman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott - who threatened to pull his state out of the refugee resettlement program in 2016 - did not respond to a request for comment.

The new veto power is the latest blow to a system for welcoming refugees that long enjoyed bipartisan support, but that critics say has been dramatically weakened under Trump.

For decades, the United States resettled more refugees than any other country - and often more than all other countries combined. Democratic and Republican presidents endorsed the program, and Ronald Reagan celebrated it in his farewell address, highlighting America's welcome to refugees as proof that America stood "for freedom."

But under Trump - who has speculated that refugees are a "Trojan horse" bent on attacking the United States from within - the White House has slashed resettlement totals, allowing Canada to speed ahead. Last month, his administration said the cap for the coming year would be 18,000. That's the lowest in four decades and down 84 percent from the highest-ever cap, 110,000 during the final year of the Obama administration.

Trump bragged of the cuts at his Thursday night rally, prompting loud cheers.

As the numbers have fallen, the infrastructure to support refugees has shriveled; more than 100 refugee resettlement offices have closed or suspended resettlements in recent years, according to a report by Refugee Council USA.

Meanwhile, the number of people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes worldwide is the highest on record - more than 70 million, according to UNHCR, the U.N.'s refugee agency.

The administration's refugee policies "send a terrible message at a terrible time," said Nazanin Ash, vice president for public policy at the International Rescue Committee. "The gap between need and resettlement slots is the biggest its ever been."

Trump says he is replacing McAleenan as acting homeland security secretary

The White House said the lower totals were needed to focus resources and attention on the surge of asylum seekers at the Mexican border. But policy analysts say they believe the lower cap, coupled with the state and local veto, are part of a broader strategy to weaponize the issue and limit not only illegal entry to the United States, but legal paths, too.

"This all seems designed to make it more difficult and more unpopular to resettle refugees," said Stuart Anderson, a George W. Bush administration immigration official and now executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy. "It gives an elected official who wants to make a name for himself a platform to say, 'Oh, these refugees are going to be dangerous so we don't want them.' "

Unlike asylum seekers who arrive on their own in the United States, refugees being resettled are thoroughly screened in advance by Homeland Security and need to be approved for entry before they can arrive.

Federal officials have long coordinated with state and local leaders about how and where to resettle the newcomers, with refugees distributed in small towns and big cities across the nation.

But by giving state and local leaders the chance to veto new arrivals, the process could be scrambled next year. While refugees will be able to move once they are resettled, even to areas that have enacted bans, there may not be any support for them once they get there. Family reunifications could also be complicated if a new arrival's relatives live in a place that has exercised the veto.

Recent history suggests that at least some state leaders will use the veto. In 2015, following terrorist attacks in Europe that came amid a historically large influx of asylum seekers, 31 governors said they opposed letting in Syrian refugees. All but one were Republicans.

A year later, Mike Pence - then the Indiana governor, now vice president - sought to stop resettlement agencies in his state from getting reimbursed for the cost of providing social services to Syrians.

The courts ruled against that move, as they have with other attempts by state or local officials to keep refugees out.

Trump's executive order is likely to prompt pro-refugee groups to file suit.

Authority over refugee and immigration policy "is exclusively federal," said Melissa Keaney, a senior staff attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project, one of the groups contemplating a challenge. "There's been a couple of hundred years of case policy on that."

If the courts don't stop the order, state and local governments could begin to block refugees as soon as January.

While some Republican state officials have been supportive of the White House's new policies, others have offered implicit criticism, saying that the Trump administration should be focused on providing protection to more people - not fewer.

"Our refugees make friends, get jobs, contribute to their communities and become a beautiful part of the fabric of our state," said a spokesman for Utah's Republican governor, Gary R. Herbert. "We are glad they are here, and welcome more of them."

But Adler, Austin's mayor, said he is concerned that Texas will veto new admissions, and that other areas will get the benefits his city has enjoyed from welcoming refugees - including nearly 400 in the past year.

If that happens, other areas may pick up the slack.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview that refugees had long been a vital part of the state's culture, and he would welcome the chance to take in more if they're turned away elsewhere.

"The loss of other communities," Polis said, "can be our gain."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No refugees allowed? Trump's plan to give states and cities a veto prompts an outcry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No state in America resettled more refugees in the past year than Texas. And in the state capital, the mayor says the influx has been a boon. "It's brought in industrious, hard-working people. It's brought greater exposure to the world and to different cultures," Austin Mayor Steve Adler said.