# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech is something that I don't usually think about in my personal life. However, when I do start to wonder how it affects me and those around me, I realize that it directly impacts my students. I continually encourage my students to change the world, but how can they do that if they are not free to SPEAK in favor of change, even if it goes against the norm?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unfortunately, humans have not been very good stewards of the Earth over the years. To protect the environment and preserve the planet for our children and future generations, we all need to take proactive steps toward cleaner living habits.

Most of the damage to our environment stems from consumption: what we consume, how much we consume and how often.

Whether it's gas, food, clothing, cars, furniture, water, toys, electronics, knick-knacks or other goods, we are all consumers. The key is not to stop consuming, but to start being mindful of our consumption habits and how each purchase or action affects the ecosystem.

The good news is that it's often not too difficult, expensive, or inconvenient to become more environmentally friendly. It can even be a fun challenge to implement among your family or coworkers. And though small changes at the individual level may seem trivial, just think how much cleaner the planet would be if everyone adopted even a few of the following behavior modifications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Ways You Can Protect the Environment | Green Mountain Energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protect the environment with renewable energy & these other helpful tips to protect the planet and keep it green and healthy for years and generations to come.

# data[].attributes.headline
Protecting ecosystems brings benefits to society

# data[].attributes.subject
Protecting ecosystems brings benefits to society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ecosystems are essential to our well-being and prosperity as they provide us with food, clean air and fresh water. Ecosystems also represent an exceptional source of outdoor recreation opportunities. The functions performed by ecosystems that increase our well-being are called ecosystem services. The PEER Research on EcoSystem Services (PRESS) initiative describes how different EU policies can help to increase the services and benefits provided by ecosystems, and calls for the inclusion of the ecosystem services approach into European policy measures affecting the use or state of natural resources.

The results of this research initiative were presented in Brussels on 13 September to an international panel of experts which helps DG Environment of the European Commission with the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The report prepared to describe these results outlines a strategy which aims to promote a better understanding of how ecosystems and biodiversity provide essential benefits to our society. Launched in 2010, the PRESS initiative demonstrated how European researchers, including social scientists, economists, and ecologists, can combine their expertise to map and assess the natural, social and economic values of ecosystems services.

The first phase of the study, which was concluded in September 2011 with the publication of a first PRESS report, demonstrated methodologies to map the role of ecosystems as providers of clean water and recreation and investigated how ecosystem services can be mainstreamed into agriculture, fisheries or forestry policies. The second and final phase of the study consisted of case studies carried out on pollination, recreation and water purification to explore how assessment methods to measure and map ecosystem services might be developed at multiple spatial scales.

A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: Methods, case studies and policy analysis -- phase 2. Synthesis report is intended to convey four main policy messages:

The capacity of wetlands, rivers, streams and lakes to remove or immobilize pollutants is essential to the provision of clean water for multiple uses and decreases costs of wastewater treatment based on technological solutions only. New proposals of the European Commission to green the Common Agricultural Policy and to restore wetland ecosystems are predicted to have positive effects on water purification services, thereby improving water quality and increasing the economic benefits to society.

Outdoor recreation services are one of the most immediate perceived benefits of ecosystems to people. The PRESS study presents evidence of high visitation rates to natural areas, in particular forests. Surveys show that citizens are willing to pay for continued access to forest ecosystems for recreation purposes. On a national scale, the value of forests for recreation may be in a range of billions of Euros. This value increases when we consider the avoided cost for health care due to the restorative and stress reduction capacity of recreational activities. Green urban areas such as city parks also have high recreational potential. The PRESS study report describes spatial methods to identify where investments in green urban areas reach their highest potential.

Insects such as bees and bumblebees are key actors in providing pollination services to maintain Europe's crop production, in particular of fruit and vegetables. High resolution data of forests and riparian areas were used to map the ecosystems in which bees and bumblebees build nests and find nectar-carrying flowers. Such information is important to convince farmers to help manage and protect these habitats as they increase their agricultural output.

The mapping, assessment and valuation of ecosystem services are necessary but not sufficient steps in achieving the ecosystem services targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. We need to develop a thorough understanding of how we determine the levels of the various ecosystem services and the impacts of current policies on ecosystems.

Sound and cost-effective management of ecosystems should also take into account those EU policies that directly and indirectly influence ecosystems and the services they provide, e.g. policies designed to bring about social and economic changes, such as those on international trade, agriculture, land use, and nature conservation.

Including the ecosystem services concept in all social and economic policies would allow for a systematic review of their impacts on services, beyond conventional environmental assessments. The PRESS initiative recommends that new policies should be flexible in design and continuously monitored in order to be able to react and adapt to new circumstances, and that baseline levels and goals should be quantified in order to be able to measure progress. It calls for the broad collaboration of stakeholders at all levels, including researchers, policy makers, and citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ecology research; nature; extreme survival; ecosystems; ecology; sustainability; land management; retail and services; environmental policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting ecosystems brings benefits to society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ecosystems are essential to our well-being and prosperity as they provide us with food, clean air and fresh water. Ecosystems also represent an exceptional source of outdoor recreation opportunities. The functions performed by ecosystems that increase our well-being are called ecosystem services.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Importance of Our Ecosystem & Ways to Protect It

# data[].attributes.subject
The Importance of Our Ecosystem & Ways to Protect It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Our Ecosystem & Ways to Protect It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The word “ecosystem” is short for ecological system and consists of many different organisms such as plants, animals, soil, water and microorganisms living together and relying on each other for existence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Eutrophication

Within the past 50 years, eutrophication - the over-enrichment of water by nutrients such as nitrogen phosphorus - has emerged as one of the leading causes of water quality impairment. The two most acute symptoms of eutrophication are hypoxia (or oxygen depletion) and harmful algal blooms, which among other things can destroy aquatic life in affected areas.

The rise in eutrophic and hypoxic events has been attributed to the rapid increase in intensive agricultural practices, industrial activities, and population growth which together have increased nitrogen and phosphorus flows in the environment. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) found that human activities have resulted in the near doubling of nitrogen and tripling of phosphorus flows to the environment when compared to natural values.

Before nutrients-nitrogen in particular-are delivered to coastal ecosystems, they pass through a variety of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, causing other environmental problems such as freshwater quality impairments, acid rain, the formation of greenhouse gases, shifts in community food webs, and a loss of biodiversity.

Once nutrients reach coastal systems, they can trigger a number of responses within the ecosystem. The initial impacts of nutrient increases are the excessive growth of phytoplankton, microalgae (e.g., epiphytes and microphytes), and macroalgae (i.e., seaweed). These, in turn, can lead to other impacts such as: loss of subaquatic vegetation, change in species composition, coral reef damage, low dissolved oxygen, and the formation of dead zones (oxygen-depleted waters) that can lead to ecosystem collapse.

Impacts

Excess nutrients in coastal waters can cause excessive growth of phytoplankton, microalgae (i.e. epiphytes and microphytes), and macroalgae (i.e. seaweed).

In turn, the increase in phytoplankton and algae can lead to more severe secondary impacts such as:

Loss of subaquatic vegetation as excessive phytoplankton, microalgae and macroalgae growth reduce light penetration.

Change in species composition and biomass of the benthic (bottom-dwelling) aquatic community, eventually leading to reduced species diversity and the dominance of gelatinous organisms such as jellyfish.

Coral reef damage as increased nutrient levels favor algae growth over coral larvae. Coral growth is inhibited because the algae outcompetes coral larvae for available surfaces to grow.

A shift in phytoplankton species composition, creating favorable conditions for the development of nuisance, toxic, or otherwise harmful algal blooms.

Low dissolved oxygen and formation of hypoxic or "dead" zones (oxygen-depleted waters), which in turn can lead to ecosystem collapse.

The scientific community is increasing its knowledge of how eutrophication affects coastal ecosystems, yet the long-term implications of increased nutrient fluxes in our coastal waters are currently not entirely known or understood. We do know that eutrophication diminishes the ability of coastal ecosystems to provide valuable ecosystem services such as tourism, recreation, the provision of fish and shellfish for local communities, sportfishing, and commercial fisheries. In addition, eutrophication can lead to reductions in local and regional biodiversity.

Today nearly half of the world's population lives within 60 kilometers of the coast, with many communities relying directly on coastal ecosystems for their livelihoods. This means that a significant portion of the world's population is vulnerable to the effects of eutrophication in their local coastal ecosystems.

Two of the most acute and commonly recognized symptoms of eutrophication are harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

Harmful Algal Blooms

Harmful algal blooms (Figures 1 and 2) can cause fish kills, human illness through shellfish poisoning, and death of marine mammals and shore birds. Harmful algal blooms are often referred to as "red tides" or "brown tides" because of the appearance of the water when these blooms occur. One red tide event, which occurred near Hong Kong in 1998, wiped out 90 percent of the entire stock of Hong Kong's fish farms and resulted in an estimated economic loss of $40 million USD.

Hypoxia

Hypoxia, considered to be the most severe symptom of eutrophication, has escalated dramatically over the past 50 years, increasing from about 10 documented cases in 1960 to at least 169 in 2007. Hypoxia occurs when algae and other organisms die, sink to the bottom, and are decomposed by bacteria, using the available dissolved oxygen. Salinity and temperature differences between surface and subsurface waters lead to stratification, limiting oxygen replenishment from surface waters and creating conditions that can lead to the formation of a hypoxic or "dead" zone. The formatioin of dead zones can lead to fish kills (Figure 3) and benthic mortality. Because benthic organisms are bottom dwelling and cannot easily flee low-oxygen zones, they are often the most severely impacted.

Sources

Where do nutrients come from?

Nutrient pollution released to freshwater and coastal areas comes from many diverse sources including agriculture, aquaculture, septic tanks, urban wastewater, urban stormwater runoff, industry, and fossil fuel combustion. Nutrients enter aquatic ecosystems via the air, surface water, or groundwater (Figure 1).

From region to region, there are significant variations in the relative importance of nutrient sources. For example, in the United States and the European Union, agricultural sources-commercial fertilizers and animal manure-are typically the primary sources of nutrient pollution in waterways, while urban wastewater is often a primary source of nutrients in coastal waterways of South America, Asia and Africa.

Agricultural Sources

Agricultural nutrient sources include fertilizer leaching and runoff from agricultural fields; manure from CAFOs; and aquaculture operations.

Chemical fertilizers

Between 1960 and 1990, global use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer increased more than sevenfold, while phosphorus use more than tripled. Studies have shown that fertilizers are often applied in excess of crop needs (MA 2005). The excess nutrients are lost through volatilization (when nitrogen vaporizes in the atmosphere in the form of ammonia), surface runoff (Figure 2), and leaching to groundwater. On average, about 20 percent of nitrogen fertilizer is lost through surface runoff or leaching into groundwater (MA 2005). Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and nitrogen in manure that is spread on fields is also subject to volatilization. Under some conditions, up to 60 percent of the nitrogen applied to crops can be lost to the atmosphere by volatilization (University of Delaware Cooperative Extension 2009); more commonly, volatilization losses are 40 percent or less (MA 2005). A portion of the volatilized ammonia is redeposited in waterways through atmospheric deposition. Phosphorus, which binds to the soil, is generally lost through soil erosion from agricultural lands.

Manure

The rapidly changing nature of raising livestock over the last century has also contributed to a sharp increase in nutrient levels. Animal production is intensifying, and as a result, more production is occurring further away from feedstock supplies, making it harder to spread the manure. The large quantity of manure produced by these operations is applied to land as fertilizer, stacked in the feedlot, or stored in lagoons. Frequently, an oversupply of manure means that it is applied to crops more than is necessary, further exacerbating nutrient runoff and leaching.

In China, meat production rose by 127 percent between 1990 and 2002 (FAO 2009a), but fewer than 10 percent of an estimated 14,000 intensive livestock operations have installed pollution controls (Ellis 2007). In the Black Sea region, one swine operation-which subsequently closed-had over 1 million pigs and generated sewage equivalent to a town of 5 million people (Mee 2006).

Aquaculture

Aquaculture (fish farming) is another growing source of nutrient pollution. Annual aquaculture production worldwide increased by 600 percent in twenty years, from 8 million tons in 1985 to 48.2 million tons in 2005 (Figure 3). Today nearly 43 percent of all aquaculture production is within marine or brackish environments, with the remainder in freshwater lakes, streams, and man-made ponds (FAO 2007). Marine fish and shrimp farming often occur in net pens or cages situated in enclosed bays. These farms generate concentrated amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus from excrement, uneaten food, and other organic waste. If improperly managed, aquaculture operations can have severe impacts on aquatic ecosystems as nutrient wastes are discharged directly into the surrounding waters. For every ton of fish, aquaculture operations produce between 42 and 66 kilograms of nitrogen waste and between 7.2 and 10.5 kilograms of phosphorus waste (Strain and Hargrave 2005).

Urban and Industrial Sources

Municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial wastewater discharges, nitrogen leaching from below-ground septic tanks, and stormwater runoff are some of the urban and industrial sources of nutrient pollution. Municipal and industrial sources are considered "point sources" of nutrient pollution because they discharge nutrients directly to surface waters or groundwater via a pipe or other discrete conveyance. They are typically the most controllable sources of nutrients and are often regulated in developed countries.

The most prevalent urban source of nutrient pollution is human sewage, though its importance varies by region and country. Sewage is estimated to contribute 12 percent of riverine nitrogen input in the United States, 25 percent in Western Europe, 33 percent in China, and 68 percent in the Republic of Korea (MA 2005). This variation is due, in large part, to differences in sewage treatment levels among countries (Table 1). In developing countries, fewer than 35 percent of cities have any form of sewage treatment (UNEP and WHRC 2007), and when sewage is treated, it is typically aimed at removing solids, not nutrients.

Households in developed countries often use septic systems when they are not connected to municipal wastewater treatment plants. Septic systems are designed to purify waste by leaching it through soils. They leach, on average, 14 kilograms of nitrogen per system per year-much of which reaches groundwater or nearby surface waters (Ann Arundel County Maryland DPW 2008). Stormwater runoff is another significant source of nutrients from urban areas. Rainfall events flush nutrients from residential lawns and impervious surfaces into nearby rivers and streams. In some cities, combined sewer overflow (CSO) systems worsen stormwater runoff problems. CSOs are designed to collect rainwater, domestic wastewater, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. During heavy rain or snowmelt, wastewater volume can exceed the capacity of the CSO system, as well as that of the wastewater treatment plant receiving the flow. As a result, the excess wastewater, including raw sewage, is discharged directly into nearby streams and rivers. In the United States, over 772 cities had CSOs in 2007 (EPA 2007). For industrial sources of nutrient pollution, certain industries are larger sources than others. Pulp and paper mills, food and meat processing, agro-industries, and direct discharge of sewage from maritime vessels are some of the larger sources of industrial nutrient pollution.

Fossil Fuel Sources

When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the atmosphere. NOx contributes to the formation of smog and acid rain. NOx is redeposited to land and water through rain and snow (wet deposition), or can settle out of the air in a process called dry deposition. Coal-fired power plants and exhaust from cars, buses, and trucks are the primary sources of NOx. Fossil fuel combustion contributes approximately 22 teragrams of nitrogen pollution globally every year (Table 2), approximately one-fifth of the contribution of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (MA 2005). In the Baltic Sea, atmospheric deposition, primarily from burning fossil fuels, accounts for 25 percent of nitrogen inputs (HELCOM 2005). Similarly, in the Chesapeake Bay, atmospheric deposition accounts for 30 percent of all nitrogen inputs. In some areas, such as in the U.S. North Atlantic, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen can exceed riverine nitrogen inputs to coastal areas (Spokes and Jickells 2005).

Drivers

Complex and interrelated socioeconomic factors drive the increase in nutrient pollution, which is causing increased occurrences of eutrophication and hypoxia. Indirect drivers include population growth; economic growth in the developing world, which will impact consumer consumption; and the growth of intensive agriculture. Direct drivers of eutrophication include higher energy consumption, increased fertilizer consumption, and land-use change.

Indirect Drivers of Eutrophication

Population Growth

The global population is predicted to grow from 6.5 billion in 2005 to nearly 9.2 billion in 2050, with the majority of population growth occurring in less developed countries (UNPD 2008). Of particular concern for the eutrophication predicament is population in coastal areas which is expected to grow from 1.2 billion people (c. 1990) to between 1.8 and 5.2 billion by the 2080s (Rabalais et al 2008). Population growth will increase the demand for food, land, energy and other natural resources, ultimately leading to greater agricultural production and increased burning of fossil fuels to heat homes, power cars, and fuel industry.

Economic Growth

Global per capita income is projected to double between 2002 and 2030, with the greatest income growth occurring in developing countries (Dargay et al. 2007). Per capita income of developing countries is expected to grow by 2.2 percent annually between 2002 and 2030. In developed countries, per capita income is forecast to grow approximately 1.5 percent annually (Dargay et al. 2007).

Increasing incomes will lead to changes in consumption patterns, such as different dietary choices, increasing energy use, and increasing consumption of consumer goods. Worldwide, dietary trends are moving toward greater meat consumption as a result of increased purchasing power, especially in the case of lower to middle income populations (FAO 2002). Between 1961 and 2002, the average worldwide per capita meat consumption rose by 87 percent, from an average per capita consumption of 21.2 kilograms per person to 39.7 kilograms per person (FAO 2009a). Between 2002 and 2030, meat consumption is expected to increase by 44 percent in the Middle East and North Africa region, 36 percent in East Asia, and 28 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. South Asia, which currently has the lowest per capita meat consumption, is expected to double its meat consumption by 2030. Worldwide, per capita meat consumption is expected to increase by 14 percent by 2030, to an estimated average consumption of 45.3 kilograms of meat per person. When population growth is included, this rise equates to an estimated increase of 53 percent in total meat consumed worldwide.

Increased livestock production is expected to have significant implications for the severity of nutrient pollution worldwide. For example it is estimated that 80% of the nitrogen used in swine production is excreted as manure or lost to the environment during the production of animal feed (UNEP and WHRC 2007).

Direct Drivers of Eutrophication

Energy Consumption

Growing populations and expanding economies demand more energy. Total worldwide energy consumption rose by 33 percent between 1990 and 2005 (EIA 2008). Currently, more than 86 percent of the world's energy needs are being met by fossil fuel sources (coal, oil, and natural gas) (EIA 2008). Once combusted, fossil fuels discharge nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the atmosphere. While alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal are available, the heavy reliance on fossil fuels is expected to continue in the short to medium term. Between 2005 and 2030, experts estimate that per capita energy consumption will increase by approximately 18 percent, while total global energy consumption will rise by 50 percent; the developing world is projected to account for the majority of increased energy consumption (EIA 2008). Fossil fuels are expected to continue meeting approximately 86 percent of global energy needs (EIA 2008).

Fertilizer Consumption

Growing populations, changing dietary trends that will increase the demand for meat, and expanding use of biofuels will necessitate increased agricultural production. As a result, fertilizer consumption is expected to increase 40 percent between 2002 and 2030 (Figure 2, base scenario) (FAO 2000). With genetic engineering to improve crop nutrient-use efficiency, this increase in fertilizer consumption is estimated to be only 17 percent over the same time period (Figure 2, nutrient efficiency scenario) (FAO 2000). The majority of the projected increase in global fertilizer consumption is attributed to the developing world where food production and adoption of intensive agricultural practices are expected to increase (FAO 2000).

Land-use Conversion and Agricultural Expansion

Tied to increased food production is the conversion of land from perennial vegetation (plants that live for more than two years) to annual cropping. From 1995 to 2002, cropland has experienced a net increase globally of about 3 million hectares per year, with over 90 percent of the total cropland gains coming from forests (Holmgren 2006). Agriculture is also the single largest cause of wetland loss. Approximately 50 percent of the world's wetlands have been lost since the 1950s, the majority as a result of drainage for agricultural production (OECD/IUCN 1996). The FAO predicts that land-use conversion for agriculture will continue, but at a slower pace than in the past (FAO 2002). Natural landscapes such as forests and wetlands are important for capturing and cycling nutrients. Increasing land-use conversion reduces the ability of these landscapes to intercept nutrients and leads to greater nutrient losses to local waterways.

Other Drivers

Recent research suggests that eutrophication and subsequent hypoxia may be exacerbated by climate change and overfishing. Many of the factors driving the process of eutrophication are correlated and synergistic with those factors driving climate change and overfishing (e.g., growing demand for energy and increased food consumption linked to growing populations and economic growth). Below is a brief discussion of how these two factors are linked to eutrophication.

Climate Change

Climate Change has the potential to exacerbate expressions of eutrophication in water bodies and aquatic ecosystems that suffer from nutrient pollution, for example:

Increased surface water temperatures linked to climate change could lead to stratification of the water column, thus preventing oxygenation of the colder bottom waters and possibly leading to hypoxic or anoxic conditions in systems already suffering from eutrophication.

Warmer water temperatures (linked to climate change) combined with increased nutrient loads may be beneficial for certain harmful algal species and lead to increased frequency of harmful algal blooms. One example is the abundance of the dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus Toxicus, associated with fish poisoning, which has been positively correlated to increased surface water temperatures in tropical oceans caused by the meteorological phenomenon El Niño (Moore et al. 2008).

Changes in precipitation patterns linked to climate change can also influence the expression of eutrophication. For instance, an increase in precipitation may lead to changes in stratification patterns as more freshwater in the form of runoff (and associated desalinization) is discharged into coastal oceans, and will also translate into higher nutrient fluxes (Rabalais et al, 2008).

Changing wind patterns linked to climate change could influence circulation and mixing in oceans and coastal zones. In turn this can influence stratification of the water column and lead to increasing or decreasing oxygen and nutrient levels in aquatic ecosystems (Rabalais et al, 2008). Changing wind patters may also affect existing patterns of upwelling and transport of nutrients in oceans.

Accelerated sea level rise and coastal erosion linked to climate change poses a direct threat to a number of coastal ecosystems (IPCC 2007). These coastal features (e.g., wetlands, salt marshes) play a key role in the removal of excess nutrients entering coastal waters and their total effectiveness will be impaired by the reduction of their coastal coverage (Moss 2010).

Video: Climate Change, Eutrophication and Hypoxia in Oregon

Overfishing

Overfishing alters the food web and can help tip a system already suffering from eutrophication towards collapse. In a simple scenario, overfishing could lead to the removal of fish species that grazes on plankton. The removal of this species might in turn lead to a higher abundance of plankton, which, coupled with increased nutrient concentrations, can potentially lead to algal blooms and the subsequent formation of dead zones. For example, in the Black Sea, overfishing resulted in the removal of apex predators which triggered massive (and complex) changes in the aquatic food web, ultimately leading to the domination of species like jellyfish which favor ongoing eutrophic and hypoxic conditions (Daskalov et al. 2007). In the Black Sea, eutrophication, overfishing, introduction of exotic jellyfish species (e.g. Mnemiopsis leidyi) have led to algal blooms and formation of hypoxia (Arai 2001; Daskalov 2003).

Another example of where overfishing has been linked to increased expressions of eutrophication is the Chesapeake Bay. Excessive exploitation and destruction of oyster grounds in the Chesapeake Bay may be positively correlated to pronounced eutrophication and hypoxia events in the bay. Dense oyster beds once served as a filtering mechanism in the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters are filter feeders capable of controlling population dynamics in aquatic system by grazing prominently on phytoplankton thereby limiting blooms and improving water quality (Jackson et al. 2001; Lotze et al. 2006). The advent of harvesting through mechanical dredging in the Chesapeake Bay (c. 1930s), led to a dramatic reduction of oyster reefs limiting their filtering ability and was likely one of the determining factors in the ensuing eutrophic and hypoxic conditions (Jackson et al. 2001).

Solutions

Finding solutions for mitigating eutrophication

Given the diversity of pathways, sources, and drivers of nutrient pollution, policies to address eutrophication cannot be limited to traditional command-and-control approaches such as regulatory standards, nor can they be focused exclusively on a single sector such as wastewater treatment. Policymakers should look more broadly at agricultural, energy, land use, and public health policies and design these policies to mitigate nutrient pollution.

Types of policies to consider in a comprehensive nutrient reduction framework include:

Education and Outreach

Education and outreach include shaping values through environmental education in schools, building knowledge and skills through outreach to communities and industry, and raising public awareness and support for political action through targeted communication campaigns.

Environmental Education

Environmental education helps shape values and raise environmental awareness from an early age. It focuses on teaching the inherent value of the environment; the interconnectedness of environment, economy, culture, and health; and how human actions affect the environment. Environmental education may be the most important avenue for addressing the indirect drivers of eutrophication. It informs people about how the choices they make ultimately impact the environment and can lead to changes in individual behaviors and lifestyles that reduce nutrient pollution.

While some countries incorporate environmental education into primary and secondary school curricula, many do not. For instance, environmental education is lacking in many former Communist countries in the Black Sea region; as a result, social attitudes reflect the low value placed on the environment (McQuatters-Gallop and Mee 2007). Despite efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in countries such as Romania, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia, and Ukraine, environmental education is still not widely incorporated in school curriculums.

In contrast, environmental education is an important component of efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay in the United States. As part of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, states within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area agreed to incorporate Chesapeake Bay issues into school curriculums. For example, Chesapeake 2000 stipulates that every student residing in the Chesapeake Bay region should have a "meaningful Chesapeake Bay and/or stream experience" before graduation from high school (Chesapeake Bay Program 2001).

Public Awareness

Raising awareness can change public perceptions of eutrophication, alter individual behavior, and pressure governments to take steps to mitigate eutrophication. The first step in raising awareness is to pose the question: "Why does it matter to me?" Relevant and reliable data and research are needed to underpin and create compelling messages. While messages should be based on sound science, they should be expressed in terms and concepts that are easily understood by the public.

In the Chesapeake Bay, for instance, public awareness efforts include iconic images of crabs and slogans such as "Save the Bay" and "Treasure the Chesapeake." Other efforts in the Chesapeake Bay include marking storm drains that carry runoff into the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries (in an effort to prevent dumping); marking watershed boundaries with road signs; offering license plates with a Chesapeake Bay theme; implementing subway advertising campaigns and educational displays; and garnering newspaper and television media coverage of the issue.

Outreach and Technical Assistance

Outreach activities and technical assistance are important for building the knowledge and skills required for individuals and industries to begin addressing nutrient pollution. For example, outreach to the agricultural community can educate farmers on nutrient-related pollution issues and farm-level management practices that mitigate nutrient losses. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides support to educate farmers on conservation practices and provides technical assistance to farmers implementing nutrient-reducing management practices, such as appropriate manure handling and fertilizer application rates. As with most policies, the success of outreach and technical assistance will vary depending on the effectiveness of the outreach strategy, suitability of the technology or practice being promoted to meet community needs, ease of adoption, and willingness to change on the part of the targeted community.

Fiscal & Economic Incentives

Types of economic and fiscal incentives that can be used to incentivise reductions in nutrient pollution include ecotaxes, incentive payments/subsidies, ecolabeling, and environmental markets (adapted from Sands 2003. These mechanisms are meant to complement or avoid regulatory approaches. These policies are described in more detail below.

Ecotaxes

Ecotaxes, also known as green fees and taxes, are meant to create "full cost accounting" of economic activities by using fiscal policies to internalize negative externalities. Some examples of green fees and taxes that can be used in the context of mitigating eutrophication include:

Polluter-pays tax. A polluter-pays tax provides economic incentives for ecologically sustainable activities-or, conversely, disincentives for activities that are not ecologically sustainable. For example, Denmark's wastewater tax, imposed on point sources (industry and wastewater treatment plants), levies a tax on every unit of nitrogen, phosphorus, and biological oxygen demand (BOD) discharged in wastewater (EcoTech 2001). Similarly, the Netherlands employs a fee system for agriculture that levies fines on farms with nitrogen and phosphorus in excess of their approved nutrient budget (Hoffmann and Boyd 2006).

Dedicated environmental tax. Governments can impose taxes and fees directly on a sector or population, and then use the revenue to fund nutrient reducing activities or technologies. For example, in Maryland (U.S.) an annual fee commonly called the "flush tax" is levied on every household and business in the state via their water and sewer bill. The revenues from this tax are used to upgrade wastewater treatment plants with nutrient removal technologies and add nitrogen-removing capability to septic systems.

Taxes on technologies/products/inputs with negative environmental impacts. Placing a tax on technologies, products or inputs that are associated with negative externalities creates a price signal aimed to reduce demand for the taxed good. A fertilizer tax is an example of an input tax. The effectiveness of this kind of tax is dependent on the elasticity of demand and availability of substitutes.

Incentives and subsidies

Incentive payments, subsidies, tax credits, and low-interest loan programs are economic instruments used to encourage adoption of desirable practices. Agricultural conservation subsidies in the United States are used to encourage farmers to implement best management practices that will reduce nutrient and soil loss on farms. In Pennsylvania, the Resource Enhancement and Protection Program provides a tax credit for farmers who implement best management practices that improve water quality. Pennsylvania estimated that over a two-year period (2007-2008) the program reduced nitrogen pollution by 162,176 pounds and phosphorus runoff by 14,939 pounds (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2009). The U.S. Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program currently offers $5 billion annually in low-interest loans to municipalities and wastewater treatment plants to help fund water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment and watershed management (EPA 2009a). Since inception, the CWSRF program has spent more than $2.9 billion to control pollution from nonpoint sources and for estuary protection (EPA 2009a).

The effectiveness of incentive payments improves when performance-based approaches are used [(Guiling et al. 2006)]/publication/paying-environmental-performance-investing-farmers-and-environment). Performance-based approaches use incentive payments based on actual environmental outcomes rather than paying for actions and implementation of practices. Performance-based approaches can include incentive payments based on quantitative estimates of environmental benefits as well as mechanisms such as reverse auctions. Reverse auctions have been used in the United States and Australia to cost-effectively allocate money to landowners who reduce nutrient losses (Eigenraam 2005; Selman et al. 2007; Selman et al. 2008). In reverse auctions, multiple sellers (e.g., landowners) compete to supply a single buyer (e.g., the government) with a specified good or service, enabling the buyer to locate the most competitive sellers. In an environmental context, reverse auctions can be used to maximize environmental benefits given a limited funding budget.

Ecolabel

Ecolabeling is a voluntary method of certifying products that are produced in a way that is environmentally preferable to other products in the same product/service category based on life cycle considerations. Ecolabeling is meant to create consumer preference for "green" products and thus generate a financial return to the supplier of the certified product in the form of increased revenues. Ecolabeling of agricultural products can provide incentives for farmers who wish to certify their products and adopt sustainable agricultural practices.

Environmental Markets

Environmental markets, including regulatory and voluntary markets, use a market to provide price signals for environmental goods and are meant to align behavior with environmental goals.

Regulatory markets are meant to provide flexibility to regulated sources, thereby reducing the financial burden of regulatory compliance with limits or caps on nutrient emissions. For example, regulatory water quality trading markets for nutrients exist in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand (Selman et al. 2009) and are designed to both minimize the costs of complying with effluent nutrient caps and offset new nutrient discharges from new and expanding sources. One example of an active water quality trading program is the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Credit Exchange in Connecticut. Connecticut allows wastewater treatment plants capped under the Long Island Sound TMDL to meet their nitrogen discharge limits by upgrading their facility or by purchasing nitrogen offsets from another facility that is operating below its discharge limit. Another example is in New Zealand. Farmers in Lake Taupo are able to purchase additional nitrogen discharge allowances from other farms or implement management practices to meet their regulatory obligations or expand their production.

Conversely, voluntary markets are not driven by regulation, but by the value placed on the environmental good or service by the buyer. Voluntary markets generally follow the "payment for ecosystem services" model, where buyers (motivated by altruism or self-interest) are willing to pay landowners to maintain or enhance ecosystem services (e.g., water purification, flood control, carbon sequestration). For example, in the Chesapeake Bay, a consortium of NGOs has established a voluntary nutrient market called the Chesapeake Fund. Individuals and companies that wish to offset their "nutrient footprint" can purchase nutrient offsets from the Fund. In turn, the Chesapeake Fund uses these revenues to pay farmers in the watershed to implement nutrient-reducing best management practices.

Regulations

Regulatory approaches, also referred to as "command and control" approaches, represent one of the most straightforward approaches to controlling pollution, including nutrients. Environmental regulations can take two general forms: standards and emissions/effluent caps or limits. While standards specify certain technologies, practices, or processes that must be implemented, regulatory caps set a level of acceptable pollution, but do not dictate how this level is to be achieved. The two regulatory approaches are described in more detail below.

Standards

Standards prescribe particular technologies, practices, or processes that are meant to achieve a specific outcome. Standards might also impose limits on pollution or activities in order to protect the environment. Examples of regulatory standards include:

Environmental quality standards restrict pollution or activities in order to protect the resource or the environment. For example, harvest limits on oysters in the Chesapeake Bay are being used to lessen pressures on the oyster population in the Bay. Oysters provide a valuable ecosystem service by consuming algae and other waterborne nutrients.

Product/manufacturing standards establish levels of pollutants that cannot be exceeded in the manufacture of a product or emissions from a product. Product standards might also specify the properties or specifications for product design. For example, U.S. law includes nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission standards for vehicles sold in the United States. Vehicles must be designed in such a way as to not exceed maximum NOx emission thresholds.

Process/design standards include installation and design standards as well as operating standards. Installation and design standards set requirements that must be met in the design and construction of various installations. Operating standards determine requirements that must be met during the operation of an installation. In Maryland, the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 provides design standards for developers that require new developments to manage stormwater runoff and use design practices with low environmental impact. Mitigating stormwater runoff helps prevent nutrient losses through runoff.

Technology/practice standards include prescriptions for the type of technology that must be used or the practices that must be implemented to achieve the desired environmental outcome. For example, in Maryland, all major treatment plants are required to upgrade to enhanced nitrogen removal treatment technologies. Enhanced nutrient removal is the current state-of-the-art technology for nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants. It is capable of reducing nitrogen concentrations in wastewater discharge to 3 mg/l and phosphorus concentrations to 0.3 mg/l. In contrast, biological nutrient removal technology can only reduce nitrogen discharges to 8 mg/l and phosphorus discharges to 3 mg/l (Saffouri 2005). (Typology of regulatory standards is adapted from Sands 2003.)

Effluent/Emissions Limits and Caps

Effluent/emissions limits and caps include limits on the amount of allowable pollution discharge that can be emitted to the air or water. Unlike standards, regulatory caps do not prescribe the implementation of specific technologies or practices; rather, they place limits on the amount of pollution (e.g., nutrients) that can be released into the environment. The regulated source is generally given flexibility on how this cap is met.

In some cases, regulatory caps are placed at the watershed level, or at some other aggregate level. In the case of watershed caps, the amount of nitrogen or phosphorus leaving a watershed is capped and individual sources of nutrient pollution within the watershed must ensure that this cap is met. For example, under the U.S. Clean Water Act, states must develop and implement a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for water bodies that are impaired by excess nutrients. The TMDL sets a watershed cap and identifies the nutrient sources and reductions required from each source to comply with the TMDL. For instance, in the Long Island Sound (Connecticut and New York, U.S.) a TMDL was developed for nitrogen that calls for the removal of 24 thousand tons of nitrogen by 2014. The TMDL identified that 80 percent of the nitrogen load was from wastewater treatment plants, with the remainder of the load coming from urban stormwater runoff and atmospheric sources originating outside of the watershed. The implementation of the TMDL resulted in effluent nitrogen limits for all wastewater treatment plants in the basin, effectively requiring a 64 percent reduction in nitrogen discharges from regulated facilities (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 2001).

Research & Monitoring

Research, monitoring, and evaluation activities are essential for characterizing the nature of the eutrophication problem, providing information and support tools to inform policies, and establishing effective measures for managing and reducing nutrient losses.

Examples of important research, tools, and monitoring efforts include:

Time series monitoring data to evaluate long-term trends and provide a better understanding of the drivers, sources, and impacts of eutrophication;

Watershed models that assess nutrient fate and transport within watersheds, inform management scenarios, provide watershed analysis, and evaluate progress toward environmental goals;

Nutrient source information such as location of sources, land use information, animal numbers, and population information;

Watershed boundaries, location of waterways, and groundwater flows; and

Nutrient budgets-watershed analyses that identify the amount and sources of nutrients entering waterways-to identify the appropriate actions to reduce nutrient losses. Nutrient budgets form the basis of nutrient reduction strategies and identify those actions needed to meet reduction targets for agricultural, urban, and point sources.

In addition to the need for adequate data about eutrophication and its effects, it is important to support research and development of technologies, processes, and practices for mitigating and controlling nutrient losses. Examples of critical research ares include research on measures that can be undertaken on farms to reduce nutrient losses, research and development of nutrient efficient crop varieties, and development of technologies and processes that can be used to reduce nutrient pollution.

Restoration & Protection of Ecosystems

Preserving and restoring riparian forests, wetlands, mangroves, and open areas can mitigate nutrient pollution by creating and maintaining natural nutrient sinks. These policies can take many forms, including:

Protected areas. Establishing protected areas through legal measures can serve to protect and preserve critical ecosystems. In 1998, 6,264 km2 of the Danube Delta (Romania and Ukraine) were protected as part of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere program. The Danube Delta lies on the coast of the Black Sea and is Europe's largest wetland and reed bed. It is a critical ecosystem for capturing and cycling nutrients (UNESCO 2007).

Land purchases and establishment of conservation easements. Public and private purchases of ecologically valuable land as well as establishment of conservation easements (i.e., the purchase of development rights) can help reduce nutrient pollution by protecting ecosystems that capture and cycle nutrients.

For example, the Worcester Land Protection Partnership is a partnership between the city of Worcester (Massachusetts, U.S.) and the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit land conservation organization, aimed at identifying and acquiring priority watershed land for the purpose of improving and maintaining water quality within the rivers and reservoirs (Trust for Public Land 2008).

Habitat restoration. Often the aquatic ecosystems most severely impacted by eutrophication are the ones that have been already degraded due to other causes (Mee 2006). Human pressures on fish stocks, shoreline erosion, and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation make ecosystems more vulnerable to the impacts of eutrophication. In the United States, Maryland and Virginia have both funded restoration efforts aimed at restoring submerged aquatic vegetation and replenishing oyster beds in the Chesapeake Bay.

Capitalize on Synergies

Nutrient pollution and eutrophication are strongly linked with other global environmental issues like climate change, air pollution and acid rain. Policymakers should exploit the linkages between eutrophication and other local, regional, and global environmental issues and identify those policies that minimize tradeoffs and maximize environmental benefits. Combustion of fossil fuels, for example, emits nitrogen oxides (NOx), which can be a significant source of nutrient pollution to aquatic ecosystems through the process of atmospheric deposition (Spokes and Jickells 2005).

NOx also contributes to other environmental problems such as acid rain and smog. In addition to NOx, combustion of fossil fuels also releases significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere-the gas that is primarily responsible for climate change. Policies aimed at reducing combustion of fossil fuels through energy conservation, energy efficiency, and promotion of alternative energy thus have multiple environmental and public health benefits (Moomaw 2002).

Another area with considerable environmental synergies is agricultural policy (Greenhalgh and Sauer 2003). Agricultural policies aimed at providing incentives to farmers to install and implement improved nutrient management on their farms often have several environmental benefits beyond improved water quality. Best management practices that reduce nutrient runoff can also improve wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion, sequester carbon dioxide, and reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 281 times greater than carbon dioxide (EPA 2009b).

In contrast, policies aimed at mitigating eutrophication that are narrowly focused on regulating wastewater treatment plants have very few environmental co-benefits. In fact, many of the advanced nutrient removal technologies that would be installed by wastewater treatment plants use significantly more energy-which, depending on the method of energy generation, may lead to greater emissions of NOx and carbon dioxide-and possibly emit a significant portion of the captured nitrogen into the atmosphere through volatilization (Foley et al 2007). While primary and secondary treatment of sewage discharges from wastewater treatment plants is important for human health, it is necessary for policymakers to weigh tradeoffs of advanced tertiary treatments and ensure that the selected policies adequately consider the various sectors, sources of nutrient pollution, and other environmental issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Within the past 50 years, eutrophication - the over-enrichment of water by nutrients such as nitrogen phosphorus - has emerged as one of the leading causes of water quality impairment. The two most acute symptoms of eutrophication are hypoxia (or oxygen depletion) and harmful algal blooms, which among other things can destroy aquatic life in affected areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

# data[].attributes.subject
50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join us in creating a just, equitable world free of plastic pollution & its toxic impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No roads lead to Kuujjuaq. You can only get to this village, high in the Canadian Arctic, by boat or plane. The trees here are stunted and small, but the bears grow big. The 500 kids who live in Kuujjuaq (pronounced KOO-joo-ak) have unusual chores: they help their parents catch fish and hunt caribou to eat. This place might seem far away from the big problems of big cities, like water pollution and air pollution. But even here, people can't escape those problems. Pretty little Kuujjuaq, with its blue skies and crystal clear waters, also has an invisible pollution problem that rivals any city.

Toxic chemicals have a surprising way of finding their way up here to the Arctic. They are gushed out of factories and cities thousands of miles away, and they travel to the Arctic like birds flying north for the summer. The birds go back home, but the chemicals stay.

Everyone in Kuujjuaq has the chemicals in their bodies. No one knows their full effects, but they may hurt children in a slow and silent way. They could cause babies to get sick a little more often. And they might even cause kids to do worse in school.

No one would have dreamed that people in such a clean and beautiful place could be hurt by pollution from thousands of miles away. Then, in 1989, some scientists made a discovery.
POPs around the world
Eric Dewailly, a doctor at Laval University in Québec, Canada, was studying chemicals called persistent organic pollutants, or POPs. These are chemicals that can hang around for a long time in people's bodies or in the environment.

Dewailly and his team tested people in the cities of southern Québec (near the border with the United States) to see how much of these chemicals were in their bodies. Dewailly's team wanted to compare this group with people in the Arctic. They reasoned that people in the Arctic lived far from pollution, and so would probably have lower levels of POPs in their bodies.

So the scientists went up to Nunavik, the remote, northern part of Québec which includes Kuujjuaq and 13 other native Inuit villages. When they tested people in Nunavik they were surprised. People there had five to ten times as much of these chemicals in their bodies as people living in polluted cities. Some of the chemicals came from as far away as Russia!

Scientists now understand why this happens. The POPs include hundreds of different chemicals. Some are used in electronic gadgets like TVs, or in the lights and electrical wiring of buildings. Some are used in paints or for making windows waterproof. Others are sprayed onto crops as pesticides. But POPs have one thing in common: They like to evaporate. Just as a puddle of water dries on a hot summer sidewalk, POPs turn slowly into vapor and drift into the air. Winds can carry them thousands of miles.

POPs travel in the air until they reach a cold place. Have you noticed that on a hot day, a glass of lemonade with ice cubes in it collects little drops of water on the outside? This is because water vapor, which is a gas in the air, "condenses" onto the cold glass and forms those droplets-the opposite of evaporating or drying. The same thing happens with POPs, says Knut Breivik, an environmental chemist at the Norwegian Institute of Air Research in the city of Kjeller.

"Things tend to evaporate in warmer regions and condense when it gets colder," says Breivik. So when winds carry POPs into the Arctic or Antarctic parts of the world, cold temperatures cause them to condense onto plants or rocks or snow or oceans. And then they stay where they landed and build up over time.
10 million tons
Over the years, more than 10 million tons of POPs have probably floated through the skies to the Arctic. If those chemicals were piled on an area the size of a football field, the pile would rise 700 meters in the air-higher than the tallest building on Earth.

Since the chemicals are spread over the entire Arctic instead of a football field, there's actually only a small amount in any one place. A swimming pool filled with Arctic Ocean water might contain only a single tiny raindrop of POPs. But these chemicals have a nasty habit of collecting inside animals and people, so even a little bit in the environment can end up causing problems.

POPs tend to stick to the oils and fats in living things, so tiny ocean animals like plankton soak them up, just like a shirt soaks up a drop of spaghetti sauce. Those plankton are eaten by larger animals, which in turn are eaten by even larger animals.

Every time one animal eats another, more POPs enter the larger animal's body. Animals can't digest POPs. They take them in the front, but never poop or pee them out the back end. So the POPs collect and collect. The biggest animals, like sea birds, seals, and whales, have the most POPs in their bodies. And these animals are eaten by native Inuit people, who have lived and hunted in Nunavik and other parts of the Arctic for thousands of years.
Two teaspoons
By the time a boy growing up in Kuujjuaq turns five years old, he may have collected one or two little rain drops' worth of POP chemicals in his body. That doesn't sound like much-but it's thousands of times more concentrated than these chemicals are in sea water. In fact, that little boy has as much of these chemicals in his 20-kilogram body as there would be in two and a half million kilograms of sea water-in other words, enough sea water to fill an Olympic swimming pool! Scientists are trying to understand how the chemicals affect kids.

Kids in Kuujjuaq play and joke around.

André Perron/Wikimedia Commons

Dewailly's team has made many trips back to Nunavik to study the problem of POPs. In 1992 and 2004, they sailed in a ship to all 14 villages along the coast of Nunavik, including Kuujjuaq. The ship stopped at each village, and doctors took blood samples and examined people. They measured POPs in hundreds of newborn babies. Blood samples were taken again when the babies turned one year old. And these babies were studied for years as they grew, to find out how the POPs in their bodies affected them over time.

These studies have shown that POP chemicals affect the health of children in small but worrying ways. For one thing, these chemicals can weaken children's immune systems, says Pierre Ayotte, a toxicologist who works with Dewailly at Laval University. "Then you're less able to fight disease," he says. Babies with the most POPs in their bodies had more ear infections and more infections in their lungs-not minor infections like colds or flu, but serious ones that affect breathing and can sometimes send you to the hospital.
Long division
These chemicals might even affect how well kids do in school. When the babies were 1 year old, the Laval University scientists gave them some tests. They tested how well the babies used their hands. They also tested how well the babies paid attention and learned when they were shown new toys. All of these tests were videotaped, and scientists carefully studied the videos afterward. What they saw surprised them.

Babies with high POPs levels weren't quite as coordinated with their hands as other babies. They also didn't pay attention quite as well when they were being shown new toys-they often stared away at other things. And during several hours of tests, these babies became upset and cried more often.

These were small differences. You wouldn't notice them unless you watched the babies closely. But when the same babies were tested again at the age of 5, the ones with high POPs still did a little worse.

"At later ages you're still at a disadvantage," says Gina Muckle, a psychologist on the Laval University team that traveled to Nunavik to test the children. Muckle thinks that even small changes can affect how children do in school as they get older. They could affect how a child responds when taught something hard, like long division-whether they meet the challenge with a positive attitude, or get upset and discouraged. Or they could affect how a child responds to the stress of going to a new school-how well they make new friends, and whether they still do well in class during those awkward times. Little differences, over the years, could add up. "Those effects," says Muckle, "are likely to be a real disadvantage overall during the life of the person."
Still trickling
No one was happy to learn that POP chemicals were hurting people in the Arctic. But finding out about the problem gave the Inuit a chance to do something about it. In the 1990s, the United Nations held a meeting, called the Stockholm Convention, to discuss banning many POP chemicals. The Inuit sent people to the United Nations to tell how POPs had affected them. Since 1998, 140 countries have agreed to stop making many POP chemicals. As a result, levels of POPs in the Arctic are falling.

But it will take a long time for the problem to go away. For one thing, buildings around the world still contain many tons of POPs in their paint and wiring. Every day, a little bit of those chemicals turns into vapor and drifts outside. Eventually, it reaches the Arctic.

Researcher Sébastien Roy tests the quality of a lake's water during the 2004 Nunavik Health Survey.

Isabelle Dubois/NRBHSS

Soil also contains huge amounts of POP chemicals-and the hot blast of a forest fire can send them into the air, just as a hot blow drier causes water to evaporate from your hair. Breivik found that major fires in 2004 and 2006 caused large amounts of POPs to go into the air and reach the Arctic. Many of these chemicals last for 100 years or longer.
Likely suspects
The other problem is that while hundreds of POP chemicals are known, there are probably others that scientists still don't know about. "There are new compounds that are ending up in remote areas," says Frank Wania, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto in Scarborough.

Many POPs contain the element chlorine. But in the last few years, scientists like Wania have been surprised to find that two families of manmade chemicals, which contain the elements fluorine or bromine, have found their way into the Arctic. "We failed to recognize [them] until they were already accumulating in the Arctic," says Wania-meaning that large amounts of them were turning up in seals, birds and people. By the time the chemicals were discovered and banned, the damage was done.

Scientists want to get ahead of the problem. Wania has surveyed 100,000 industrial chemicals. He was looking for chemicals-you could call them "hoppers," "fliers" and "swimmers"-which might reach the Arctic. Out of those chemicals, he found 120 likely suspects that he plans to look at more closely.

All of this might seem like a lot of effort. But many scientists think it's the right thing to do. It comes down to one question, says Muckle-whether we want children to be able to grow and learn to their full potential. "The environmental contaminants are certainly an issue," she says. "As a society we need to take that into account."

Douglas Fox is a freelance journalist who writes about life, earth and Antarctic sciences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No roads lead to Kuujjuaq. You can only get to this village, high in the Canadian Arctic, by boat or plane. The trees here are stunted and small, but the

# 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.headline
Kids versus Fossil Fuels: A Chat with a Teenage Activist

# data[].attributes.subject
Kids versus Fossil Fuels: A Chat with a Teenage Activist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids versus Fossil Fuels: A Chat with a Teenage Activist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientific American spoke with Kelsey Juliana, one of the 21 kids who are suing the U.S. government over climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Artist Dianna Cohen shares some tough truths about plastic pollution in the ocean and in our lives -- and some thoughts on how to free ourselves from the plastic gyre.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unsightly plastic bottles, bags and other trash give just a hint of the largely unseen problem of plastic pollution. Scientists have found tiny bits of it throughout the ocean. The bad news: Sea life can’t tell the difference between plastic and food.

# data[].attributes.headline
New tools aim to better predict blooms of toxic algae

# data[].attributes.subject
New tools aim to better predict blooms of toxic algae

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
algae Single-celled organisms, once considered plants (they aren't). As aquatic organisms, they grow in water. Like green plants, they depend on sunlight to make their food.

app Short for application, or a computer program designed for a specific task.

asthma A disease affecting the body's airways, which are the tubes through which animals breathe. Asthma obstructs these airways through swelling, the production of too much mucus or a tightening of the tubes. As a result, the body can expand to breathe in air, but loses the ability to exhale appropriately. The most common cause of asthma is an allergy. Asthma is a leading cause of hospitalization and the top chronic disease responsible for kids missing school.

bacteria (singular: bacterium) Single-celled organisms. These dwell nearly everywhere on Earth, from the bottom of the sea to inside other living organisms (such as plants and animals).

biology The study of living things. The scientists who study them are known as biologists.

bloom (in microbiology) The rapid and largely uncontrolled growth of a species, such as algae in waterways enriched with nutrients.

carbon dioxide (or CO ₂) A colorless, odorless gas produced by all animals when the oxygen they inhale reacts with the carbon-rich foods that they've eaten. Carbon dioxide also is released when organic matter burns (including fossil fuels like oil or gas). Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in Earth's atmosphere. Plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen during photosynthesis, the process they use to make their own food.

cell The smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. Typically too small to see with the unaided eye, it consists of a watery fluid surrounded by a membrane or wall. Depending on their size, animals are made of anywhere from thousands to trillions of cells. Most organisms, such as yeasts, molds, bacteria and some algae, are composed of only one cell.

chlorophyll Any of several green pigments found in plants that perform photosynthesis - creating sugars (foods) from carbon dioxide and water.

colleague Someone who works with another; a co-worker or team member.

computer model A program that runs on a computer that creates a model, or simulation, of a real-world feature, phenomenon or event.

computer program A set of instructions that a computer uses to perform some analysis or computation. The writing of these instructions is known as computer programming.

cyanobacteria A type of bacteria that can convert carbon dioxide into other molecules, including oxygen.

cyst A group of cells that form a type of bubble-like shell or sac. Some cysts develop as a result of disease or tissue damage. Others may develop as a normal, protective during certain phases of a parasite's maturation.

diarrhea (adj. diarrheal) Loose, watery stool (feces) that can be a symptom of many types of microbial infections affecting the gut.

dolphins A highly intelligent group of marine mammals that belong to the toothed-whale family. Members of this group include orcas (killer whales), pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins.

domoic acid A toxin produced by some algae. If ingested by humans or other animals, it can cause brain damage, seizures and memory problems.

endangered An adjective used to describe species at risk of going extinct.

environment The sum of all of the things that exist around some organism or the process and the condition those things create. Environment may refer to the weather and ecosystem in which some animal lives, or, perhaps, the temperature and humidity (or even the placement of components in some electronics system or product).

Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA) A national government agency charged with helping create a cleaner, safer and healthier environment in the United States. Created on Dec. 2, 1970, it reviews data on the possible toxicity of new chemicals (other than foods or drugs, which are regulated by other agencies) before they are approved for sale and use. Where such chemicals may be toxic, it sets limits or guidelines on how much of them may be released into (or allowed to build up in) the air, water or soil.

flagella (sing. flagellum) A thread-like structure that comes out of certain types of cells. The term derives from the Latin word for whip. And that's because the structures serve like oars to help these cells travel.

freshwater A noun or adjective that describes bodies of water with very low concentrations of salt. It's the type of water used for drinking and making up most inland lakes, ponds, rivers and streams, as well as groundwater.

global warming The gradual increase in the overall temperature of Earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. This effect is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and other gases in the air, many of them released by human activity.

kelp A type of large seaweed that is usually a type of brown algae. They grow underwater and form large forests, providing habitat for many organisms. Some kelp forests are so large they can be seen from space.

marine mammal Any of many types of mammals that spend most of its life in the ocean environment. These include whales and dolphins, walruses and sea lions, seals and sea otters, manatees and dugongs - even polar bears.

microcystins A class of toxins produced by some freshwater algae that are also known as cyanobacteria. Most of these toxins work by poisoning the liver.

microscope An instrument used to view objects, like bacteria, or the single cells of plants or animals, that are too small to be visible to the unaided eye.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (or NOAA) A science agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Initially established in 1807 under another name (The Survey of the Coast), this agency focuses on understanding and preserving ocean resources, including fisheries, protecting marine mammals (from seals to whales), studying the seafloor and probing the upper atmosphere.

nutrient A vitamin, mineral, fat, carbohydrate or protein that a plant, animal or other organism requires as part of its food in order to survive.

oceanography (adj. oceanographic ) The branch of science that deals with the physical and biological properties and phenomena of the oceans. People who work in this field are known as oceanographers.

organism Any living thing, from elephants and plants to bacteria and other types of single-celled life.

paralysis (adj. paralytic) The inability to willfully move muscles in one or more parts of the body. In some cases, nerves that carry the signal to move may have been severed or damaged. In other cases, the brain may be the source of the problem: It may fail to understand or act on a nerve's signal to move.

phosphorus A highly reactive, nonmetallic element occurring naturally in phosphates. Its scientific symbol is P. It is an important part of many chemicals and structures that are found in cells, such as membranes, and DNA.

risk The chance or mathematical likelihood that some bad thing might happen. For instance, exposure to radiation poses a risk of cancer. Or the hazard - or peril - itself. (For instance: Among cancer risks that the people faced were radiation and drinking water tainted with arsenic.)

satellite A moon orbiting a planet or a vehicle or other manufactured object that orbits some celestial body in space.

sea An ocean (or region that is part of an ocean). Unlike lakes and streams, seawater - or ocean water - is salty.

seawater The salty water found in oceans.

secrete (noun: secretion) The natural release of some liquid substance - such as hormones, an oil or saliva - often by an organ of the body.

short-term memory (also known as primary memory) The small amount of memory held actively in the mind for a short period of time, such as the series of digits in a telephone number.

species A group of similar organisms capable of producing offspring that can survive and reproduce.

toxic Poisonous or able to harm or kill cells, tissues or whole organisms. The measure of risk posed by such a poison is its toxicity.

toxin A poison produced by living organisms, such as germs, bees, spiders, poison ivy and snakes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New tools aim to better predict blooms of toxic algae

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists across the United States are developing programs that can predict when blooms of toxic algal may occur.

# data[].attributes.headline
You Can't Just "Clean Up" the Plastic in the Ocean. Here's Why.

# data[].attributes.subject
You Can't Just "Clean Up" the Plastic in the Ocean. Here's Why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic Planet is a series on the global plastics crisis that evaluates the environmental and human costs and considers possible solutions to this devastating man-made problem.

All products are independently selected by our editors. If you buy something, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Since the early 1950s, there has been an estimated 8.3 billion tons - and counting - of plastic produced on the planet, according to a 2017 study published in the Science Advances journal. The United Nations Environment Program reports that roughly 60% of that lump sum has made its way to landfills or the ocean. Each year, an estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic ends up in the ocean, according to the advocacy group Ocean Conservancy. Some calculations predict that there could be more plastic by weight in the ocean than fish by 2050.

The situation is so dire that the ocean is already home to five notable trash vortexes, more commonly known as garbage patches: the North Atlantic Gyre, the South Atlantic Gyre, the South Pacific Gyre, the Indian Ocean Gyre, and the North Pacific Gyre. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, located in the North Pacific Gyre between California and Hawaii, is the most notorious as it is the largest of the five, with an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of trash. For measure, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is three times the size of France and weighs as much as 43,000 cars. And according to experts, it is growing "exponentially."

The fundamental issue with plastic is that it's largely not biodegradable. This means it cannot be broken down into reusable compounds. Instead, it degrades over time into smaller particles also known as microplastics, which are defined as pieces that are five millimeters in length or less, according to the National Ocean Service. While these tiny particles aren't floating at the top of the ocean, they pose a threat: Aside from contaminating the waters, plastic in the ocean injures and kills marine animals - collectively, it has impacted at least 800 species worldwide. Humans are impacted as well, as microplastics make their way into our food through seafood, water, and sea salt. Unfortunately, little is known about the scale of the problem since research is in its preliminary stages.

Some nations carry a larger burden of the blame than others. According to a 2015 study published in Science Advances, the top six countries for ocean garbage are China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. But other nations are not necessarily free from blame. The same study found that the United States, for example, contributes as much as 242 million pounds of plastic trash to the ocean every year.

Tackling the man-made environmental disaster - both cleaning up the existing plastic pollution in the ocean and preventing further damage - is not easy. "It is not as simple as going out there and just scooping up these floating islands of trash," Nick Mallos, the director of Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas program, tells Teen Vogue.

Currently, a nearly 2,000-foot-long floater, essentially a floating trash collector, has made its way to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to take a stab at tackling the existing problem - it's the brainchild of 24-year-old Boyan Slat, who conceived the idea for his contraption in 2013 and started the Ocean Cleanup. Slat's device, a high-density polyethylene pipe, travels with the wind, waves, and storms and sweeps up plastic along the way. It also includes a 10-foot-long impermeable underwater skirt that picks up plastic that isn't on the surface. The plastic will then be removed from the water and taken by boat to shore, where it will be processed for recycling.

The first step of the Netherlands-based organization is to collect the larger floating plastic objects before approaching the smaller pieces. Within five years, the Ocean Cleanup hopes to remove half of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Now, weeks in, Business Insider has reported things don't appear to be going as they should be: The garbage collected by the device is drifting into sea instead of staying trapped. "Although we are not harvesting plastic yet, based on the current results, we are positive we are close to making it work," wrote Slat in an update in November, adding that his team believes "the first solution [they] will attempt could potentially remediate both of these causes."

A spokesperson for the Ocean Cleanup told Teen Vogue that Boyan and the rest of the team are "highly confident" that finding a solution is just "a matter of time," noting that all other aspects of the system - surviving rough weather and not harming marine life - are working well aside from not being able to keep the trapped plastic. "These kinds of issues are certainly something that they anticipated," said the spokesperson. "Expecting the unexpected is inherent to the process when you move from modeling and testing to reality. It also stresses the importance of going out there because reality is the ultimate test for the beta system."

Elsewhere, U.K.-based the Plastic Tide, founded by Peter Kohler, uses drone-mounted cameras, machine learning, and citizen science to take aerial photos and train a "machine-learning" algorithm to recognize plastic trash. The idea would be to track the existing plastic and the spread of plastic to home in on where to prioritize cleanup efforts.

Another element is reducing the amount of plastic that gets into the ocean going forward: In 2015, Reuters reported that research was released based on data from 2010, showing that more than 8 million tons of plastic go from land to the ocean each year.

Emma Tonge, a communications and outreach specialist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, tells Teen Vogue that "prevention is the key to solving the marine debris problem over time." She uses the analogy of an overflowing sink: You can't fix the buildup without turning off the faucet. For marine debris, cleaning up nearshore and coastline regions is akin to turning off the faucets.

"Shorelines and coastal areas are easy to access, and we try to get these debris items before they have the chance to get to the ocean," says Tonge, whose program's main focus is prevention.

Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas program organizes an international coastal cleanup that it says is the world's largest volunteer effort and works with businesses and individuals to implement change in practices and behaviors that impact ocean health. The Ocean Conservancy also has a mobile app - called Clean Swell - that allows individuals to record each item of trash they collect, which is later used by scientists and policymakers. While cleanups won't solve the marine plastic debris problem, it makes a difference. Mallos says it is a "Band-Aid, not a cure," but says cleanups have an "immediate and direct impact."

Encouraging corporations to use less plastic is one way to reduce the odds of plastic debris: Putting less plastic on shelves means less is purchased, consumed, and discarded.

"Corporations that either make plastic - the actual material - or make products that use plastic in their packaging have a very big responsibility in this problem," Mallos says. "There are some products out there, like plastic bags and expanded polystyrene food and beverage packaging - these are materials and types of products that simply no longer have a place in our economy. They pose a very severe risk to the marine environment when they leak into the ocean. And we know that there are suitable alternatives for these products that deliver the same utility and functionality as these products."

A 2018 brand audit conducted by environmental activist group Break Free From Plastic of more than 187,000 pieces of plastic trash across 239 cleanups spanning 42 countries shed light onto potential offenders. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé were the most frequent multinational brands collected in cleanups. A PepsiCo spokesperson told Teen Vogue the company is "committed to achieving 100% recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable packaging by 2025" and strives to "use 25% recycled plastic content in [their] plastic packaging by that same year." Coca-Cola told Teen Vogue it has placed "ambitious goals" for the company's World Without Waste vision: It aims to "collect and recycle a bottle or can for every one [they] sell - regardless of where it comes from - by 2030" and "use an average of 50% recycled content in our bottles and cans by 2030." Teen Vogue has reached out to Nestlé and will update once we hear back.

Some significant progress is also being made by other companies. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a U.K.-based environmental charity, launched a campaign to get corporations on board with accountability. So far, more than 250 organizations - including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, H&M, S.C. Johnson, and L'Oréal - have pledged to eradicate plastic waste within seven years. These organizations have pledged to reuse, recycle, or compost 100% of their plastic packaging by 2025.

Mallos also spotlights two other areas that need work. One is creating appropriate waste collecting and recycling infrastructure for existing plastic goods in the market to guarantee responsible disposal. The other is to look at innovative materials that can replace some of the most problematic forms of plastic that currently exist. "Corporations have a very important role in supporting and catalyzing investment and innovation in many of those fronts," Mallos says.

And then there is consumer accountability. A recent wave of consumer activism has led to the widespread ban of straws, which are especially problematic since they cannot be recycled. A noble endeavor, no doubt, but according to a Bloomberg Opinion essay, straws only account for 0.03% of total plastic waste. To truly fight ocean plastic pollution, a broader approach is needed.

Mallos says individuals can help in three ways. One is to reevaluate our daily plastic waste footprint and make decisions to reuse things like plastic bags and water bottles. Second is to send a message with your purchasing power: Watch what you buy so corporations take into account consumer preference and purchasing habits. Lastly, advocate for smart policy - like plastic bag bans - that "deliver locally appropriate solutions."

The Ocean Conservancy's 2018 Coastal Cleanup Report gathered data from beach cleanups across the globe to identify common trash items: cigarette butts, food wrappers, plastic beverage bottles, plastic bottle caps, plastic grocery bags, other plastic bags, straws and stirrers, plastic takeout containers, plastic lids, and foam takeout containers. "For the first time ever, all of the top 10 items found globally were made of plastic," Mallos says. "We know that globally, plastic production is increasing. What we're seeing now on the beaches is a manifestation of that production.

"This is a global, complex issue. And everyone has a role to play. That ranges from us as individuals all the way up to governments and corporations," Mallos says.

"No matter who you are, you're connected to the ocean. No matter where you live, you're connected to the ocean," Tonge says. "Everyone can really have a part to play, no matter how small or large that part is."
For more information on the global plastics crisis, read the rest of the Plastic Planet series.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You Can't Just "Clean Up" the Plastic in the Ocean. Here's Why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this Plastic Planet reported feature, we explain why ocean cleanup isn't the best approach to combat the global plastics crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Straw No More | Molly Steer | TEDxJCUCairns

# data[].attributes.headline
The Surprising Solution to Ocean Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
The Surprising Solution to Ocean Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Katz: The surprising solution to ocean plastic | TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can we solve the problem of ocean plastic pollution and end extreme poverty at the same time? That’s the ambitious goal of The Plastic Bank: a worldwide chain of stores where everything from school tuition to cooking fuel and more is available for purchase in exchange for plastic garbage -- which is then sorted, shredded and sold to brands who reuse “social plastic” in their products. Join David Katz to learn more about this step towards closing the loop in the circular economy. “Preventing ocean plastic could be humanity’s richest opportunity,” Katz says.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Dutch Teenager Had a Dream to Clean Up the World's Oceans. 7 Years On, It's Coming True

# data[].attributes.subject
A Dutch Teenager Had a Dream to Clean Up the World's Oceans. 7 Years On, It's Coming True

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For someone who gets violently seasick, Boyan Slat spends a lot of time thinking about the ocean. The Dutch inventor has designed the world's first ocean plastic cleanup system but admits he won't be on the ship with it when it launches out of San Francisco on Saturday. "I am not a man of the sea," he says.

After five and a half years of hard work, the 23-year-old Slat will watch from dry land as System 001 - a floating barrier nearly 2,000ft long - snakes its way out under the Golden Gate Bridge into the Pacific. Its destination is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a gyre of plastic waste twice the size of Texas held in position by ocean currents between California and Hawaii.

If all goes to plan, Slat says, an array of 60 systems could reduce the amount of plastic there by half by 2025. "I hope that this will be a turning point for the plastic pollution problem," Slat tells TIME in a phone interview a few days before the launch, in between final preparations. "For sixty years it has only gotten worse and worse. Now hopefully we're turning the tide."

The eradication of the garbage patch, and more broadly the salvation of our oceans, has been Slat's single-minded goal ever since he was 16 years old, when a diving trip to Greece yielded more plastic bag sightings than fish. Struck by the idea for a floating barrier that could collect plastic using the power of ocean currents alone, he founded his company, The Ocean Cleanup, aged just 18.

Boyan Slat, CEO of The Ocean Cleanup The Ocean Cleanup

The idea grabbed imaginations around the world. In 2015, an early prototype of System 001 was featured on TIME's list of the best inventions of 2015. The project has come a long way since then, Slat says. "It takes a trained eye to see the similarities."

What was originally envisaged as a large rigid barrier arranged around a central tank for collecting plastic, is today an unmanned, modular system that moves with the currents, naturally gravitating to areas of higher concentration. From the air it looks like a pipeline sitting on the surface of the sea, but beneath the waves lies a 10ft deep 'skirt,' which traps plastic accumulated by the current.

Because the system is solid rather than a net, Slat says sea life will be protected from becoming ensnared. The hope is that plastic will accumulate as if on a seashore, ready to be collected by boats and taken for recycling.

It's an ambitious plan, and one that has received millions of dollars of funding thanks to fast-shifting public opinion on plastic. In December 2017, 193 countries signed a U.N. resolution to eliminate ocean plastic pollution, and big corporations like McDonald's are moving to remove single-use plastics from their stores. (Some say not fast enough.) The U.N. says over 8 million tons of plastic still enter the oceans each year - the equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic every minute.

But reducing our addiction to plastic is just one half of the equation, Slat says. "These garbage patches won't go away by themselves. Even if we were to close the tap today the plastic would still be there in 100 years."

System 001 floating in the San Francisco Bay before its launch The Ocean Cleanup

Slat sees his mission as a race against time. Plastic gradually breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics which can eventually enter the food chain. Currently, however, just 8% of the plastic mass in the Pacific garbage patch is microplastics, according to research carried out by The Ocean Cleanup published in the journal Scientific Reports. "But of course what's going to happen over the next few decades is that all the other 92% of plastic will be turned into microplastics as well," Slat says. "So the sooner we get it out, the better."

A thorny question remains in what will happen to the plastic that is brought back to shore from The Ocean Cleanup's systems. Slat says he wants to turn it into branded merchandise, but acknowledges that all depends on the quality of the plastic, which remains a mystery. In any case, most of the plastic in the oceans is single-use, Slat argues. "By not making it into anything single-use, you can already reduce the chances of it ending up back in the oceans by 99%," he says.

But it's possible that lots of the waste returned to land will have to be carted off to third-party recycling plants and eventually recycled into more single-use plastics that might one day return to the oceans. The task ahead isn't so much Herculean as Sisyphean.

Nevertheless, Slat isn't dissuaded easily. "Big problems require big solutions," he says. "If anyone has any better ideas, we'd love to know."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Dutch Teen Dreamed of Cleaning Up the Ocean. Now, It's Happening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For someone who gets violently seasick, Boyan Slat spends a lot of time thinking about the ocean.

# data[].attributes.headline
Native American Rights Hunting And Fishing Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Native American Rights Hunting And Fishing Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hunting And Fishing Rights

Hunting and fishing rights are some of the special rights that Native Americans enjoy as a result of the treaties signed between their tribes and the federal government. Historically, hunting and fishing were critically important to Native American tribes. Fish and wildlife were a primary source of food and trade goods, and tribes based their own seasonal movements on fish migrations. In addition, fish and wildlife played a central role in the spiritual and cultural framework of Native American life. As the Court noted, access to fish and wildlife was "not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed" ( United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, S. Ct. 662, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1089 [1905]).

When Native American tribes signed treaties consenting to give up their lands, the treaties often explicitly guaranteed hunting and fishing rights. When the treaties created reservations, they usually gave tribe members the right to hunt and fish on reservation lands. In many cases, treaties guaranteed Native Americans the continued freedom to hunt and fish in their traditional hunting and fishing locations, even if those areas were outside the reservations. Even when hunting and fishing rights were not specifically mentioned in treaties, the reserved-rights doctrine holds that tribes retain any rights, including the right to hunt and fish, that are not explicitly abrogated by treaty or statute.

Controversy and protest have surrounded Native American hunting and fishing rights, as state governments and non-Indian hunters and fishers have fought to make Native Americans subject to state hunting and fishing regulations. The rights of tribal members to hunt and fish on their own reservations have rarely been questioned, because states generally lack the power to regulate activities on Indian reservations. Tribes themselves have the right to regulate hunting and fishing on their reservations, whether or not they choose to do so. Protests have arisen, however, over the rights of Native Americans to hunt and fish off of their reservations. Such rights can be acquired in one of two ways. In some instances, Congress has reduced the size of a tribe's reservation, or terminated it completely, without removing the tribe's hunting and fishing rights on that land. In other cases, treaties have specifically guaranteed tribes the right to hunt and fish in locations off the reservations. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, treaty provisions commonly guaranteed the right of tribes to fish "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations," both on and off their reservations. Tribes in the Great Lakes area also reserved their off-reservation fishing rights in the treaties they signed.

These off-reservation rights have led to intense opposition and protests from non-Indian hunters and fishermen and state wildlife agencies. Non-Indian hunters and fishermen resent the fact that Indians are not subject to the same state regulations and limits imposed on them. State agencies have protested the fact that legitimate conservation goals are compromised when Indians can hunt and fish without having to follow state wildlife regulations. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has consistently upheld the off-reservation hunting and fishing rights of Native Americans. In the 1905 case United States v. Winans, it ruled that treaty language guaranteeing a tribe the right to "tak[e] fish at all usual and accustomed places" indeed guaranteed access to those usual and accustomed places, even if they were on privately owned land.

The most intense opposition to Native American off-reservation hunting and fishing rights has occurred in the Pacific Northwest, where tribal members have fought to defend their right to fish in their traditional locations, unhindered by state regulations. In a series of cases involving the state of Washington and local Native American tribes, the federal courts ruled on aspects of the extent and limits of tribal fishing rights. In a 1942 case, Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 62 S. Ct. 862, 86 L. Ed. 1115, the Court ruled that tribal members could not be forced to purchase fishing licenses because the treaties that their ancestors had signed already reserved the right to fish in the "usual and accustomed places."

That case was followed by a series of cases involving the Puyallup Indian tribe that became known as Puyallup I, Puyallup II, and Puyallup III. In the first of those cases, the Court ruled that the state of Washington has the right, in the interest of conservation, to regulate tribal fishing activities, as long as "the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians" ( Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392, 88 S. Ct. 1725, 20 L. Ed. 2d 689 [1968]). In the second case, the Court ruled that the state's prohibition on net fishing for steelhead trout was discriminatory because its effect was to reserve the entire harvestable run of steelhead to non-Indian sports fishermen ( Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 U.S. 44, 94 S. Ct. 330, 38 L. Ed. 2d 254 [1973]). In its ruling, the Court declared that the steelhead "must in some manner be fairly apportioned between Indian net fishing and non-Indian sports fishing." Finally, in Puyallup III, the Court ruled that the fish caught by tribal members on their reservation could be counted against the Indian share of the fish ( Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 429 U.S. 976, 97 S. Ct. 483, 50 L. Ed. 2d 583 [1976]).

This notion of a fair APPORTIONMENT of fish was clarified by United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), in which the court determined that treaty language guaranteeing tribes the right to take fish "in common with all citizens of the Territory" guaranteed the Indians not just the right to fish but also the right to a certain percentage of the harvestable run, up to 50 percent. This decision set off a firestorm of controversy throughout the Pacific Northwest. Hundreds of legal disputes erupted over the allocation of individual runs of salmon and steelhead, and state and non-Indian fishing interests attacked the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision in a collateral case, Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n 443 U.S. 658, 99 S. Ct. 3055, 61 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1979). In that case, the Court upheld the district court's ruling and went on to clarify the details of the way the fish should be apportioned. Writing for the majority, Justice JOHN PAUL STEVENS stated that the treaties guaranteed the tribes "so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood-that is to say a moderate living." A "fair apportionment, " he said, would be 50 percent of the fish, emphasizing that 50 percent was the maximum, but not the minimum, amount of fish to which the Indians were entitled.

The Court resolved a decade-old legal dispute in 1999 involving Indian fishing and hunting rights with the decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 119 S. Ct. 1187, 143 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1999). It ruled in favor of the Chippewa Indians' right to fish and hunt in northern Minnesota without state regulation. By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld an appeals court decision finding that the tribe's rights under an 1837 treaty were still valid. The ruling marked a final victory for the tribe in its long fight to assert its treaty rights and to defend its cultural traditions.

Brought by the tribe in 1990, the lawsuit proved highly controversial in Minnesota, which regarded it as a threat to the $54 million in tourism revenue generated by the Mille Lacs Lake resort industry. But two lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state's arguments that the 162-year old treaty had been invalidated by presidential order, later treaties, and even by Minnesota's gaining of statehood. The U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, detailed the history of the treaty and subsequent actions that the state, nine counties, and landowners claimed had rendered the treaty invalid. She found nothing in this historical information that had bearing on the continued validity of the treaty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Native American Rights - Hunting And Fishing Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hunting And Fishing Rights Hunting and fishing rights are some of the special rights that Native Americans enjoy as a result of the treaties signed between their tribes and the federal government. Historically, hunting and fishing were critically important to Native American tribes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brexit trade deal: What does it mean for fishing?

# data[].attributes.subject
Brexit trade deal: What does it mean for fishing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Reality Check team
BBC News

France will begin legal action against the UK in January over the issue of post-Brexit fishing licences, according to a French minister.

Tensions have been growing between the UK and France, as both sides try to sort out the politically-charged matter of how to agree fishing rights after Brexit.

Why is there a row over fishing licences?

Under a new post-Brexit trade deal (which came into force at the start of 2021), EU members states' boats need licences to fish in UK and Jersey waters and UK boats need them to fish in the waters of EU member states.

Licences are granted to boats that can prove they have fished in a particular area between 1 February 2017 and 31 January 2020.

Requiring proof in this way is normal practice in fisheries management and there are often disputes about the evidence.

Big trawlers will routinely collect this sort of information using data from Automatic Identification Systems.

Smaller vessels, which come from French harbours to fish around the Channel Islands, for example, find it more difficult to provide this kind of proof.

How has the row escalated?

In October, the UK and Jersey denied licences to dozens of French boats.

That leaves 33 vessels which have temporary licences that are due to expire on 31 January 2022, and 54 applications which have been rejected.

A British trawler was seized by France in October because it was not on an EU list of vessels that had been granted licences to fish in French waters. The UK government said the trawler had been granted a licence but it was unclear why it was not on the list. The vessel was subsequently released.

The dispute is also about licences for small boats to fish in territorial waters between six and 12 nautical miles from Britain.

France made various threats about what would happen if more licences were not issued. Subsequently there was what UK Environment Secretary George Eustice called a "big de-escalation" of the row with "constructive talks" with France.

Then, on 19 November, French President Macron told reporters: "We have not got what we wanted," and added: "We will not yield."

On 26 November, French fishermen took their own action, including blocking access to French ports for British boats and blocking trucks at the Eurotunnel freight terminal.

On 23 December, French Europe Minister Clement Beaune told France 2 television that, in early January, France would be taking its complaints to the special tribunal set up as part of the Brexit agreements.

What are the new rules on fishing?

EU boats will continue to fish in UK waters for some years to come

But UK fishing boats will get a greater share of the fish from UK waters

That shift in the share will be phased in between 2021 and 2026, with most of the quota transferred in 2021

After that, there'll be annual negotiations to decide how the catch is shared out between the UK and EU

The UK would have the right to completely exclude EU boats after 2026

But the EU could respond with taxes on exports of British fish to the EU or by denying UK boats access to EU waters

How much fishing access will boats get?

Both sides agreed that 25% of EU boats' fishing rights in UK waters will be transferred to the UK fishing fleet over a period of five years.

This is known as the "adjustment period", giving EU fleets time to get used to the new arrangements. The EU wanted it to be longer, the UK wanted it to be shorter - it looks like they've met somewhere in the middle, with an end date of 30 June 2026.

The EU fishing quota, which is the amount of fish that EU boats are allowed to catch in UK waters, will be reduced by 15% in the first year and 2.5 percentage points each subsequent year.

By 2026, it is estimated that UK boats will have access to an extra £145m of fishing quota every year. In 2019, British vessels caught 502,000 tonnes of fish, worth around £850m, inside UK waters.

The document also sets out details of how each species of fish will be shared out between the UK and the EU during the transition.

The UK fleet can expect increases in quota for 57 out of the 90 types of fish caught in UK waters every year.

But quota shares for some species like Channel cod, of which EU boats (mainly from France) catch more than 90% each year, will remain unchanged.

After the end of the adjustment period in June 2026, there will be annual talks to set the amount EU fishing boats can catch in UK waters (and vice versa) and theoretically the UK could decide to completely withdraw access to its waters for EU vessels, although the EU would be likely to restrict access to its markets and fish to UK fishermen.

What about selling fish?

UK fishermen sell a large proportion of their catch to the EU so access to EU markets is important.

In 2019, the UK fishing industry exported more than 333,000 tonnes of fish to the EU.

That accounted for nearly half of the total catch of the UK fishing fleet and roughly three quarters of total fish exports from the UK.

Some parts of the industry - such as shellfish - are totally dependent on such exports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: Why is there a row over fishing rights?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Reality Check team BBC News France will begin legal action against the UK in January over the issue of post-Brexit fishing licences, according to a French minister. Tensions have been growing between the UK and France, as both sides try to sort out the politically-charged matter of how to agree fishing rights after Brexit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dragnet fishing can prevent migrating fish from returning to the U.S. coast where they could be caught by American fisherman. © AP Image

Fishermen in Alaska manage to catch salmon at a river that had been closed due to a weak return of migrant salmon. © AP Image

Foreign fishing practices can directly impact U.S. fish supplies. © AP Image

Overview

The Office of Marine Conservation is a part of the Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. To support the U.S. fishing industry along the East and West Coasts, the office negotiates bilateral andmultilateral fisheries agreements. These agreements protect U.S. fishermen, their industries, and the ecosystems where fish populations spawn and grow. The office also participates in international fisheries conservation and management organizations and represents the United States in a variety of other international forums.

Case Study

Historically the salmon migration between the U.S. Pacific Coast and Asia has supported a profitable industry for U.S. fishermen and the Pacific economy. But in recent years, dragnet fishing and other practices by countries have dramatically reduced the number of salmon that return to the Pacific Coast. Under-regulated fishing in Asia has damaged the natural habitats that sustain salmon populations. When contaminated ecosystems kill fish, or dragnets disrupt their migrations, thousands of U.S. fishermen feel the effects. Some even lose their businesses. For this reason the United States monitors and negotiates international fishing rights to ensure adequate salmon populations in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fishing Rights - National Museum of American Diplomacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dragnet fishing can prevent migrating fish from returning to the U.S. coast where they could be caught by American fisherman. © AP Image Fishermen in Alaska manage to catch salmon at a river that had been closed due to a weak return of migrant salmon. © AP Image Foreign fishing practices can directly impact U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Issue Overview: Why mass incarceration looms as a campaign issue

# data[].attributes.subject
Issue Overview: Why mass incarceration looms as a campaign issue

# 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.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
Four decades ago, the U.S. government declared a "war on drugs." From the rise and fall of kingpins to current efforts to interdict and stamp out drugs, follow events so far:
July 14, 1969: In a special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon identifies drug abuse as "a serious national threat." Citing a dramatic jump in drug-related juvenile arrests and street crime between 1960 and 1967, Nixon calls for a national anti-drug policy at the state and federal level.

June 1971: Nixon officially declares a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1."

July 1973: Nixon creates the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to coordinate the efforts of all other agencies.

November 1975: Colombian police seize 600 kilograms of cocaine - the largest seizure to date - from a small plane. Drug traffickers respond with a vendetta, killing 40 people in one weekend in what's known as the "Medellin Massacre." The event signals the new power of Colombia's cocaine industry, headquartered in Medellin.

1976: Former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter campaigns for president on a platform that includes decriminalizing marijuana and ending federal criminal penalties for possession of up to 1 ounce of the drug.

1979: Carlos Lehder, co-founder of the Medellin cartel, purchases a 165-acre island in the Bahamas. Small planes transporting drugs from Colombia to the United States use the island to refuel. Operations continue on the island until 1983.

1981: The Medellin cartel rises to power. The alliance includes the Ochoa family, Pablo Escobar, Carolos Lehder and Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha. The drug kingpins work together to manufacture, transport and market cocaine. The United States and Colombia ratify a bilateral extradition treaty.

1982: Panamanian leader Gen. Manuel Noriega allows Pablo Escobar to ship cocaine through Panama. In the United States, Vice-President George H.W. Bush combines agents from multiple agencies and military branches to form the South Florida Drug Task Force, Miami being the main entry point at the time.

In March, Pablo Escobar is elected to the Colombian congress; he gained support by building low-income housing, doling out money in Medellin slums and campaigning with Catholic priests. He's driven out of Congress the following year by Colombia's minister of justice.

1984: Nancy Reagan launches her "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign. In July, The Washington Times publishes a story about DEA informant Barry Seal's infiltration of the Medellin cartel's operations in Panama. The story shows that Nicaraguan Sandanistas are involved in the drug trade. As a result of Seal's evidence, a Miami federal grand jury indicts Carlos Lehder, Pablo Escobar, Jorge Ochoa and Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha. (In February 1986, Seal is assassinated in Baton Rouge, La., by gunmen hired by the cartel.)

1985: Colombia extradites drug traffickers to the United States for the first time. U.S. officials discover that the Medellin cartel has a "hit list" that includes embassy members, their families, U.S. businessmen and journalists.

Mid-1980s: Because of the South Florida Drug Task Force's work, cocaine trafficking slowly changes transport routes. The Mexican border becomes the major point of entry for cocaine headed into the United States. Crack, a cheap, addictive and potent form of cocaine, is first developed in the early '80s; it becomes popular in the New York region, devastating inner-city neighborhoods.

October 1986: Reagan signs the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which appropriates $1.7 billion to fight the drug war. The bill also creates mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, which are increasingly criticized for promoting significant racial disparities in the prison population because of the differences in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine. Possession of crack, which is cheaper, results in a harsher sentence; the majority of crack users are lower income.

February 1987: In February, Carlos Lehder is captured by the Colombian National Police and extradited to the United States, where he's convicted of drug smuggling and sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus an additional 135 years.

May 1987: After receiving personal threats from drug traffickers, the justices on the Colombian Supreme Court rule by a vote of 13-12 to annul the extradition treaty with the United States.

1988: Carlos Salinas de Gortari is elected president of Mexico, and President-elect George H.W. Bush tells him he must demonstrate to the U.S. Congress that he is cooperating in the drug war. This process is called certification.

1989: President George H.W. Bush creates the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and appoints William Bennett as his first "drug czar." Bennett aims to make drug abuse socially unacceptable. That same year, Forbes magazine lists Pablo Escobar - known for his "bribes or bullets" approach to doing business - as the seventh-richest man in the world.

December 1989: the United States invades Panama. Gen. Manuel Noriega surrenders to the DEA on Jan. 3, 1990, in Panama and is sent to Miami the next day. In 1992, Noriega is convicted on eight counts of drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering, and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

1991: The Colombian assembly votes to ban extradition in its new constitution. Pablo Escobar surrenders to the Colombian police the same day. He is confined in a private luxury prison, though reports suggest that he travels in and out as he pleases. When Colombian authorities try to move Escobar to another prison in July 1992, he escapes.

1992: Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari issues regulations for DEA officers in his country. The new rules limit the number of agents in Mexico, deny them diplomatic immunity, prohibit them from carrying weapons, and designate certain cities in which they can live.

November 1993: President Clinton signs the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which increases the amount of trade and traffic across the U.S.-Mexican border. This makes it more difficult for U.S. Customs to find narcotics moving across the border.

December 1993: Pablo Escobar, in hiding since mid-1992, is found by Colombian police using American technology that can recognize his voice on a cell phone call and estimate his location. He tries to flee but is killed.

May 1995: The U.S. Sentencing Commission releases a report that acknowledges the racial disparities for prison sentencing for cocaine versus crack. The commission suggests reducing the discrepancy, but Congress overrides its recommendation for the first time in history.

August 2000: President Bill Clinton gives $1.3 billion in aid to Plan Colombia, an effort to decrease the amount of cocaine produced in that nation. The aid supports the aerial spraying of coca crops with toxic herbicides, and also pays for combat helicopters and training for the Colombian military.

2003: In February, three Americans - contracted by the Pentagon to help with Colombia's anti-drug effort - are taken hostage by guerrilla fighters after their surveillance plane crashes. In April, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act is enacted, which targets ecstasy, predatory drugs and methamphetamine.

2004: Along with the State Department and the Department of Defense, the DEA announces its involvement in the U.S. Embassy Kabul Counternarcotics Implementation Plan. It's designed to reduce heroin production in Afghanistan, the world's leading opium producer.

January 2006: Authorities announce the discovery of the longest cross-border tunnel in U.S. history, the work of what they call a well-organized and well-financed drug-smuggling group. The half-mile long tunnel links a warehouse in Tijuana, where about two tons of marijuana were seized, to a warehouse in the United States, where 200 pounds of the drug were found.
Sources: Based on reporting from PBS' Frontline series and NPR staff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four decades ago, the U.S. government declared a "war on drugs." From the rise and fall of kingpins to current efforts to interdict and stamp out drugs, follow events so far: July 14, 1969: In a special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon identifies drug abuse as "a serious national threat."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was most recently revised and updated by

War on Drugs, the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders.

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be "public enemy number one" and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was created out of the merger of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the Office of Narcotics Intelligence to consolidate federal efforts to control drug abuse.

The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency of Ronald Reagan, which began in 1981. Reagan greatly expanded the reach of the drug war and his focus on criminal punishment over treatment led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 1984 his wife, Nancy, spearheaded another facet of the War on Drugs with her "Just Say No" campaign, which was a privately funded effort to educate schoolchildren on the dangers of drug use. The expansion of the War on Drugs was in many ways driven by increased media coverage of-and resulting public nervousness over-the crack epidemic that arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagan's hard-line stance on drugs. The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of " mandatory minimum" prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and of powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence while it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase of incarceration rates for nonviolent Black drug offenders, as well as claims that the War on Drugs was a racist institution.

Concerns over the effectiveness of the War on Drugs and increased awareness of the racial disparity of the punishments meted out by it led to decreased public support of the most draconian aspects of the drug war during the early 21st century. Consequently, reforms were enacted during that time, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana in an increasing number of states and the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that reduced the discrepancy of crack-to-powder possession thresholds for minimum sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. Prison reform legislation enacted in 2018 further reduced the sentences for some crack cocaine-related convictions. While the War on Drugs is still technically being waged, it is done at a much less intense level than it was during its peak in the 1980s.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Adam Augustyn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
War on Drugs | History & Mass Incarceration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
War on Drugs, the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders. It began in 1971 when President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be 'public enemy number one' and increased funding for drug control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US has been fighting a global war on drugs for decades. But as prison populations and financial costs increase and drug-related violence around the world continues, lawmakers and experts are reconsidering if the drug war's potential benefits are really worth its many drawbacks.

What is the war on drugs?

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon formally launched the war on drugs to eradicate illicit drug use in the US. "If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "I am not prepared to accept this alternative."

Over the next couple decades, particularly under the Reagan administration, what followed was the escalation of global military and police efforts against drugs. But in that process, the drug war led to unintended consequences that have proliferated violence around the world and contributed to mass incarceration in the US, even if it has made drugs less accessible and reduced potential levels of drug abuse.

Nixon inaugurated the war on drugs at a time when America was in hysterics over widespread drug use. Drug use had become more public and prevalent during the 1960s due in part to the counterculture movement, and many Americans felt that drug use had become a serious threat to the country and its moral standing.

Over the past four decades, the US has committed more than $1 trillion to the war on drugs. But the crackdown has in some ways failed to produce the desired results: Drug use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. The drug war also led to several - some unintended - negative consequences, including a big strain on America's criminal justice system and the proliferation of drug-related violence around the world.

While Nixon began the modern war on drugs, America has a long history of trying to control the use of certain drugs. Laws passed in the early 20th century attempted to restrict drug production and sales. Some of this history is racially tinged, and, perhaps as a result, the war on drugs has long hit minority communities the hardest.

The question with these policies, as with the drug war more broadly, is whether the risks and costs are worth the benefits. Drug policy is often described as choosing between a bunch of bad or mediocre options, rather than finding the perfect solution. In the case of the war on drugs, the question is whether the very real drawbacks of prohibition - more racially skewed arrests, drug-related violence around the world, and financial costs - are worth the potential gains from outlawing and hopefully depressing drug abuse in the US.

Is the war on drugs succeeding?

The goal of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use. The specific aim is to destroy and inhibit the international drug trade - making drugs scarcer and costlier, and therefore making drug habits in the US unaffordable. And although some of the data shows drugs getting cheaper, drug policy experts generally believe that the drug war is nonetheless preventing some drug abuse by making the substances less accessible.

The prices of most drugs, as tracked by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, have plummeted. Between 1981 and 2007, the median bulk price of heroin is down by roughly 93 percent, and the median bulk price of powder cocaine is down by about 87 percent. Between 1986 and 2007, the median bulk price of crack cocaine fell by around 54 percent. The prices of meth and marijuana, meanwhile, have remained largely stable since the 1980s.

Much of this is explained by what's known as the balloon effect: Cracking down on drugs in one area doesn't necessarily reduce the overall supply of drugs. Instead, drug production and trafficking shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up - particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won't be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

Sometimes the drug war has failed to push down production altogether, like in Afghanistan. The US spent $7.6 billion between 2002 and 2014 to crack down on opium in Afghanistan, where a bulk of the world's supply for heroin comes from. Despite the efforts, Afghanistan's opium poppy crop cultivation reached record levels in 2013.

On the demand side, illicit drug use has dramatically fluctuated since the drug war began. The Monitoring the Future survey, which tracks illicit drug use among high school students, offers a useful proxy: In 1975, four years after President Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, 30.7 percent of high school seniors reportedly used drugs in the previous month. In 1992, the rate was 14.4 percent. In 2013, it was back up to 25.5 percent.

Still, prohibition does likely make drugs less accessible than they would be if they were legal. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, suggested that prohibition multiplies the price of hard drugs like cocaine by as much as 10 times. And illicit drugs obviously aren't available through easy means - one can't just walk into a CVS and buy heroin. So the drug war is likely stopping some drug use: Caulkins estimates that legalization could lead hard drug abuse to triple, although he told me it could go much higher.

But there's also evidence that the drug war is too punitive: A 2014 study from Peter Reuter at the University of Maryland and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago found there's no good evidence that tougher punishments or harsher supply-elimination efforts do a better job of pushing down access to drugs and substance abuse than lighter penalties. So increasing the severity of the punishment doesn't do much, if anything, to slow the flow of drugs.

Instead, most of the reduction in accessibility from the drug war appears to be a result of the simple fact that drugs are illegal, which by itself makes drugs more expensive and less accessible by eliminating avenues toward mass production and distribution.

The question is whether the possible reduction of potential drug use is worth the drawbacks that come in other areas, including a strained criminal justice system and the global proliferation of violence fueled by illegal drug markets. If the drug war has failed to significantly reduce drug use, production, and trafficking, then perhaps it's not worth these costs, and a new approach is preferable.

How does the US decide which drugs are regulated or banned?

The US uses what's called the drug scheduling system. Under the Controlled Substances Act, there are five categories of controlled substances known as schedules, which weigh a drug's medical value and abuse potential.

Medical value is typically evaluated through scientific research, particularly large-scale clinical trials similar to those used by the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceuticals. Potential for abuse isn't clearly defined by the Controlled Substances Act, but for the federal government, abuse is when individuals take a substance on their own initiative, leading to personal health hazards or dangers to society as a whole.

Under this system, Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 2 drugs have high potential for abuse but some medical value. As the rank goes down to Schedule 5, a drug's potential for abuse generally decreases.

It may be helpful to think of the scheduling system as made up of two distinct groups: nonmedical and medical. The nonmedical group is the Schedule 1 drugs, which are considered to have no medical value and high potential for abuse. The medical group is the Schedule 2 to 5 drugs, which have some medical value and are numerically ranked based on abuse potential (from high to low).

Marijuana and heroin are Schedule 1 drugs, so the federal government says they have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Cocaine, meth, and opioid painkillers are Schedule 2 drugs, so they're considered to have some medical value and high potential for abuse. Steroids and testosterone products are Schedule 3, Xanax and Valium are Schedule 4, and cough preparations with limited amounts of codeine are Schedule 5. Congress specifically exempted alcohol and tobacco from the schedules in 1970.

Although these schedules help shape criminal penalties for illicit drug possession and sales, they're not always the final word. Congress, for instance, massively increased penalties against crack cocaine in 1986 in response to concerns about a crack epidemic and its potential link to crime. And state governments can set up their own criminal penalties and schedules for drugs as well.

Other countries, like the UK and Australia, use similar systems to the US, although their specific rankings for some drugs differ.

How does the US enforce the war on drugs?

The US fights the war on drugs both domestically and overseas.

On the domestic front, the federal government supplies local and state police departments with funds, legal flexibility, and special equipment to crack down on illicit drugs. Local and state police then use this funding to go after drug dealing organizations.

"[Federal] assistance helped us take out major drug organizations, and we took out a number of them in Baltimore," said Neill Franklin, a retired police major and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which opposes the war on drugs. "But to do that, we took out the low-hanging fruit to work up the chain to find who was at the top of the pyramid. It started with low-level drug dealers, working our way up to midlevel management, all the way up to the kingpins."

Some of the funding, particularly from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, encourages local and state police to participate in anti-drug operations. If police don't use the money to go after illicit substances, they risk losing it - providing a financial incentive for cops to continue the war on drugs.

Although the focus is on criminal groups, casual users still get caught in the criminal justice system. Between 1999 and 2007, Human Rights Watch found at least 80 percent of drug-related arrests were for possession, not sales.

It seems, however, that arrests for possession don't typically turn into convictions and prison time. According to federal statistics, only 5.3 percent of drug offenders in federal prisons and 27.9 percent of drug offenders in state prisons in 2004 were in for drug possession. The overwhelming majority were in for trafficking, and a small few were in for an unspecified "other" category.

Internationally, the US regularly aids other countries in their efforts to crack down on drugs. For example, the US in the 2000s provided military aid and training to Colombia - in what's known as Plan Colombia - to help the Latin American country go after criminal organizations and paramilitaries funded through drug trafficking.

Given the struggles of the war on drugs to meet its goals, federal and state officials have begun moving away from harsh enforcement tactics and tough-on-crime stances. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy now advocates for a bigger focus on rehabilitation and less on law enforcement. Even some conservatives, like former Texas Governor Rick Perry, have embraced drug courts, which place drug offenders into rehabilitation programs instead of jail or prison.

The idea behind these reforms is to find a better balance between locking up more people for drug trafficking while moving genuinely problematic drug users to rehabilitation and treatment services that could help them. "We can't arrest our way out of the problem," Michael Botticelli, US drug czar, said, "and we really need to focus our attention on proven public health strategies to make a significant difference as it relates to drug use and consequences to that in the United States."

How has the war on drugs changed the US criminal justice system?

The escalation of the criminal justice system's reach over the past few decades, ranging from more incarceration to seizures of private property and militarization, can be traced back to the war on drugs.

After the US stepped up the drug war throughout the 1970s and '80s, harsher sentences for drug offenses played a role in turning the country into the world's leader in incarceration. (But drug offenders still make up a small part of the prison population: About 54 percent of people in state prisons - which house more than 86 percent of the US prison population - were violent offenders in 2012, and 16 percent were drug offenders, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.)

Still, mass incarceration has massively strained the criminal justice system and led to a lot of overcrowding in US prisons - to the point that some states, such as California, have rolled back penalties for nonviolent drug users and sellers with the explicit goal of reducing their incarcerated population.

In terms of police powers, civil asset forfeitures have been justified as a way to go after drug dealing organizations. These forfeitures allow law enforcement agencies to take the organizations' assets - cash in particular - and then use the gains to fund more anti-drug operations. The idea is to turn drug dealers' ill-gotten gains against them.

But there have been many documented cases in which police abused civil asset forfeiture, including instances in which police took people's cars and cash simply because they suspected - but couldn't prove - that there was some sort of illegal activity going on. In these cases, it's actually up to people whose private property was taken to prove that they weren't doing anything illegal - instead of traditional legal standards in which police have to prove wrongdoing or reasonable suspicion of it before they act.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, the general trend has been to massively grow police powers and expand the criminal justice system as a means of combating drug use. But as the drug war struggles to halt drug use and trafficking, the heavy-handed policies - which many describe as draconian - have been called into question. If the war on drugs isn't meeting its goals, critics say these expansions of the criminal justice system aren't worth the financial strain and costs to liberty in the US.

How has the drug war contributed to violence around the world?

The war on drugs has created a black market for illicit drugs that criminal organizations around the world can rely on for revenue that payrolls other, more violent activities. This market supplies so much revenue that drug trafficking organizations can actually rival developing countries' weak government institutions.

In Mexico, for example, drug cartels have leveraged their profits from the drug trade to violently maintain their stranglehold over the market despite the government's war on drugs. As a result, public decapitations have become a particularly prominent tactic of ruthless drug cartels. As many as 80,000 people have died in the war. Tens of thousands of people have gone missing since 2007, including 43 students who vanished in 2014 in a widely publicized case.

But even if Mexico were to actually defeat drug cartels, this potentially wouldn't reduce drug war violence on a global scale. Instead, drug production and trafficking, and the violence that comes with both, would likely shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up - particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won't be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

In 2014, for instance, the drug war significantly contributed to the child migrant crisis. After some drug trafficking was pushed out of Mexico, gangs and drug cartels stepped up their operations in Central America's Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These countries, with their weak criminal justice and law enforcement systems, didn't seem to have the capacity to deal with the influx of violence and crime.

The war on drugs "drove a lot of the activities to Central America, a region that has extremely weakened systems," Adriana Beltran of the Washington Office on Latin America explained. "Unfortunately, there hasn't been a strong commitment to building the criminal justice system and the police."

As a result, children fled their countries by the thousands in a major humanitarian crisis. Many of these children ended up in the US, where the refugee system simply doesn't have the capacity to handle the rush of child migrants.

Although the child migrant crisis is fairly unique in its specific circumstances and effects, the series of events - a government cracks down on drugs, trafficking moves to another country, and the drug trade brings violence and crime - is pretty typical in the history of the war on drugs. In the past couple of decades it happened in Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Ecuador after successful anti-drug crackdowns in other Latin American countries.

The Wall Street Journal explained:

Ironically, the shift is partly a by-product of a drug-war success story, Plan Colombia. In a little over a decade, the U.S. spent nearly $8 billion to back Colombia's efforts to eradicate coca fields, arrest traffickers and battle drug-funded guerrilla armies such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Colombian cocaine production declined, the murder rate plunged and the FARC is on the run.

But traffickers adjusted. Cartels moved south across the Ecuadorean border to set up new storage facilities and pioneer new smuggling routes from Ecuador's Pacific coast. Colombia's neighbor to the east, Venezuela, is now the departure point for half of the cocaine going to Europe by sea.

As a 2012 report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime explained, "one country's success became the problem of others."

This global proliferation of violence is one of the most prominent costs of the drug war. When evaluating whether the war on drugs has been successful, experts and historians weigh this cost, along with the rise of incarceration in the US, against the benefits, such as potentially depressed drug use, to gauge whether anti-drug efforts have been worth it.

How much does the war on drugs cost?

Enforcing the war on drugs costs the US more than $51 billion each year, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. As of 2012, the US had spent $1 trillion on anti-drug efforts.

The spending estimates don't account for the loss of potential taxes on currently illegal substances. According to a 2010 paper from the libertarian Cato Institute, taxing and regulating illicit drugs similarly to tobacco and alcohol could raise $46.7 billion in tax revenue each year.

Is the war on drugs racist?

In the US, the war on drugs mostly impacts minority, particularly black, communities. This disproportionate effect is why critics often call the war on drugs racist.

When black defendants are convicted for drug crimes, they face longer prison sentences as well. Drug sentences for black men were 13.1 percent longer than drug sentences for white men between 2007 and 2009, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.

The Sentencing Project explained the differences in a February 2015 report: "Myriad criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral collide with broader socioeconomic patterns to create a disparate racial impact... Socioeconomic inequality does lead people of color to disproportionately use and sell drugs outdoors, where they are more readily apprehended by police."

One example: Trafficking crack cocaine, one of the few illicit drugs that's more popular among black Americans, carries the harshest punishment. The threshold for a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of crack is 28 grams. In comparison, the threshold for powder cocaine, which is more popular among white than black Americans but pharmacoligically similar to crack, is 500 grams.

As for the broader racial disparities, federal programs that encourage local and state police departments to crack down on drugs may create perverse incentives to go after minority communities. Some federal grants, for instance, previously required police to make more drug arrests in order to obtain more funding for anti-drug efforts. Neill Franklin, a retired police major from Maryland and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said minority communities are "the low-hanging fruit" for police departments because they tend to sell in open-air markets, such as public street corners, and have less political and financial power than white Americans.

In Chicago, for instance, an analysis by Project Know, a drug addiction resource center, found enforcement of anti-drug laws is concentrated in poor neighborhoods, which tend to have more crime but are predominantly black:

"Doing these evening and afternoon sweeps meant 20 to 30 arrests, and now you have some great numbers for your grant application," Franklin said. "In that process, we also ended up seizing a lot of money and a lot of property. That's another cash cow."

The disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates have clearly detrimental effects on minority communities. A 2014 study published in the journal Sociological Science found boys with imprisoned fathers are much less likely to possess the behavioral skills needed to succeed in school by the age of 5, starting them on a vicious path known as the school-to-prison pipeline.

As the drug war continues, these racial disparities have become one of the major points of criticism against it. It's not just whether the war on drugs has led to the widespread, costly incarceration of millions of Americans, but whether incarceration has created "the new Jim Crow" - a reference to policies, such as segregation and voting restrictions, that subjugated black communities in America.

What are the roots of the war on drugs?

Beyond the goal of curtailing drug use, the motivations behind the US war on drugs have been rooted in historical fears of immigrants and minority groups.

As the New York Times explained, the federal prohibition of marijuana came during a period of national hysteria about the effect of the drug on Mexican immigrants and black communities. Concerns about a new, exotic drug, coupled with feelings of xenophobia and racism that were all too common in the 1930s, drove law enforcement, the broader public, and eventually legislators to demand the drug's prohibition. "Police in Texas border towns demonized the plant in racial terms as the drug of 'immoral' populations who were promptly labeled 'fiends,'" wrote the Times's Brent Staples.

These beliefs extended to practically all forms of drug prohibition. According to historian Peter Knight, opium largely came over to America with Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. Americans, already skeptical of the drug, quickly latched on to xenophobic beliefs that opium somehow made Chinese immigrants dangerous. "Stories of Chinese immigrants who lured white females into prostitution, along with the media depictions of the Chinese as depraved and unclean, bolstered the enactment of anti-opium laws in eleven states between 1877 and 1900," Knight wrote.

Cocaine was similarly attached in fear to black communities, neuroscientist Carl Hart wrote for the Nation. The belief was so widespread that the New York Times even felt comfortable writing headlines in 1914 that claimed "Negro cocaine 'fiends' are a new southern menace." The author of the Times piece - a physician - wrote, "[The cocaine user] imagines that he hears people taunting and abusing him, and this often incites homicidal attacks upon innocent and unsuspecting victims." He later added, "Many of the wholesale killings in the South may be cited as indicating that accuracy in shooting is not interfered with - is, indeed, probably improved - by cocaine. ... I believe the record of the 'cocaine n----r' near Asheville who dropped five men dead in their tracks using only one cartridge for each, offers evidence that is sufficiently convincing."

Most recently, these fears of drugs and the connection to minorities came up during what law enforcement officials characterized as a crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s and '90s. Lawmakers, judges, and police in particular linked crack to violence in minority communities. The connection was part of the rationale for making it 100 times easier to get a mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine over powder cocaine, even though the two drugs are pharmacologically identical. As a result, minority groups have received considerably harsher prison sentences for illegal drugs. (In 2010, the ratio between crack's sentence and cocaine's was reduced from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.)

Hart explained, after noting the New York Times's coverage in particular: "Over the [late 1980s], a barrage of similar articles connected crack and its associated problems with black people. Entire specialty police units were deployed to 'troubled neighborhoods,' making excessive arrests and subjecting the targeted communities to dehumanizing treatment. Along the way, complex economic and social forces were reduced to criminal justice problems; resources were directed toward law enforcement rather than neighborhoods' real needs, such as job creation."

None of this means the war on drugs is solely driven by fears of immigrants and minorities, and many people are genuinely concerned about drugs' effects on individuals and society. But when it comes to the war on drugs, the historical accounts suggest the harshest crackdowns often follow hysteria linked to minority drug use - making the racial disparities in the drug war seem like a natural consequence of anti-drug efforts' roots.

What about the band The War on Drugs?

They're pretty great, though they don't have much to do with the actual war on drugs.

But since you mentioned them, take a break and listen to a couple songs from their latest album, .

The War on Drugs, "Red Eye":

The War on Drugs, "Under the Pressure":

Bonus from their 2011 album, Slave Ambient: The War on Drugs, "Best Night":

What are the most dangerous drugs?

This is actually a fairly controversial question among drug policy experts. Although some researchers have tried to rank drugs by their harms, some experts argue the rankings are often far more misleading than useful.

In a report published in , a group of researchers evaluated the harms of drug use in the UK, considering factors like deadliness, chance of developing dependence, behavioral changes such as increased risk of violence, and losses in economic productivity. Alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine topped the chart.

There are at least two huge caveats to this report. First, it doesn't entirely control for the availability of these drugs, so it's likely heroin and crack cocaine in particular would be ranked higher if they were as readily available as alcohol. Second, the scores were intended for British society, so the specific scores may differ slightly for the US. David Nutt, who led the analysis, suggested meth's harm score could be much higher in the US, since it's more widely used in America.

But drug policy experts argue the study and ranking miss some of the nuance behind the harm of certain drugs.

Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, gave the example of an alien race visiting Earth and asking which land animal is the biggest. If the question is about weight, the African elephant is the biggest land animal. But if it's about height, the giraffe is the biggest. And if the question is about length, the reticulated python is the biggest.

"You can always create some composite, but composites are fraught with problems," Caulkins said. "I think it's more misleading than useful."

The blunt measures of drug harms present similar issues. Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription painkillers are likely deadlier than other drugs because they are legal, so comparing their aggregate effects to illegal drugs is difficult. Some drugs are very harmful to individuals, but they're so rarely used that they may not be a major public health threat. A few drugs are enormously dangerous in the short term but not so much the long term (heroin), or vice versa (tobacco). And looking at deaths or other harms caused by certain drugs doesn't always account for substances, such as prescription medications, that are often mixed with others, making them more deadly or harmful than they would be alone.

Given the diversity of drugs and their effects, many experts argue that trying to establish a ranking of the most dangerous drugs is a futile, misleading exercise. Instead of trying to base policy on a ranking, experts say, lawmakers should build individual policies that try to minimize each drug's specific set of risks and harms.

Why are alcohol and tobacco exempted from the war on drugs?

Tobacco and alcohol are explicitly exempted from drug scheduling, despite their detrimental impacts on individual health and society as a whole, due to economic and cultural reasons.

Tobacco and alcohol have been acceptable drugs in US culture for hundreds of years, and they are stillthe most widely used drugs, along with caffeine, in the nation. Trying to stop Americans - through the threat of legal force - from using these drugs would likely result in an unmitigated policy disaster, simply because of their popularity and cultural acceptance.

In fact, exactly that happened in the 1920s: In 1920, the federal government attempted to prohibit alcohol sales through the 18th Amendment. Experts and historians widely consider this policy, popularly known as Prohibition, a failure and even a disaster, since it led to a massive black market for alcohol that funded criminal organizations across the US. It took Congress just 14 years to repeal Prohibition.

Alcohol and tobacco are also major parts of the US economy. In 2013, alcohol sales totaled $124.7 billion (excluding purchases in bars and restaurants), and tobacco sales amounted to $108 billion. If lawmakers decided to prohibit and dismantle these legal industries, it would cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Lawmakers were well aware of these cultural and economic issues when they approved the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. So they exempted alcohol and tobacco from the definition of controlled substances.

If these drugs weren't exempted, tobacco and alcohol would likely be tightly controlled under the current scheduling regime. Mark Kleiman, one of the nation's leading drug policy experts, argued both would be considered schedule 1 substances if they were evaluated today, since they're highly abused, addictive, detrimental to one's health and society, and have no established medical value.

All of this gets to a key point about the war on drugs: Policymakers don't evaluate drugs in a vacuum. They also consider the socioeconomic implications of banning a substance, and whether those potential drawbacks are worth the gains of potentially reducing substance use and abuse.

But this type of analysis of the pros and cons is also why critics want to end the war on drugs today. Even if the drug war has successfully brought down drug use and abuse, its effects on budgets, civil rights, and international violence are so great and detrimental that the minor impact it may have on drug use might not be worth the costs.

How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?

If lawmakers decided to stop the war on drugs tomorrow, a major hurdle could be international agreements that require restrictions and regulations on certain drugs.

There is a lot of disagreement among drug policy experts, enforcers, and reformers about the stringency of the treaties. Several sections of the conventions allow countries some flexibility so they don't violate their own constitutional protections. The US, for example, has never enforced penalties on inciting illicit drug use on the basis that it would violate rights to freedom of speech.

Many argue that any move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales is in violation of international treaties. Under this argument, some governments - including several US states and Uruguay - are technically in violation of the treaties because they legalized marijuana for personal possession and sales.

Others say that countries have a lot of flexibility due to the constitutional exemptions in the conventions. Countries could claim, for instance, that their protections for right to privacy and health allow them to legalize drugs despite the conventions. When it comes to individual states in the US, the federal government argues that America's federalist system allows states some flexibility as long as the federal government keeps drugs illegal.

"It's pretty clear that the war on drugs was waged for political reasons and some countries have used the treaties as an excuse to pursue draconian policies," said Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program. "Nevertheless, we've seen a number of countries drop criminal penalties for minor possession of all drugs. We've seen others put drugs into a pharmaceutical model, including the prescription of heroin to people with serious addictions. This seems completely possible within the treaties."

Even if a country decided to dismantle prohibition and violate the treaties, it's unclear how the international community would respond. If the US, for example, ended prohibition, there's little other countries could do to interfere; there's no international drug court, and sanctions would be very unlikely for a country as powerful as America.

Still, Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued that ignoring or pulling out of the international drug conventions could seriously damage America's standing around the world. "Pacta sunt servanda ('agreements must be kept') is the most fundamental principle of international law and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an 'a-la-carte' approach to treaties they have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore others without losing the moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties," Jelsma wrote in an email. "So our preference is to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to resolve them."

To resolve such issues, many critics of the war on drugs hope to reform international drug laws in 2016 during the next General Assembly Special Session on drugs.

"There is tension with the tax-and-regulate approach to marijuana in some jurisdictions," Malinowska-Sempruch said. "But it's all part of a process, and that's why we hope the UN debate in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we can settle some of these questions and, if necessary, modernize the system."

Until then, any country taking steps to revamp its drug policy regime could face criticisms and a loss of credibility from its international peers.

How do other countries deal with drugs?

There is a lot of variety in how different countries have adopted the UN conventions, ranging from levels of enforcement even more stringent than US drug laws to outright decriminalization. Here are a few examples:

China carries out some of the harshest punishments for illicit drug trafficking. In the lead-up to International Anti-Drug Day, Chinese officials unveiled executions and other harsh punishments for drug traffickers in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010, and 2009.

The United Kingdom maintains a classification system similar to America's scheduling system, with criminal penalties set based on a drug's classification. For example, selling class A substances can get someone up to life in prison, while class B sentences are limited to a maximum of 14 years.

Portugal in 2001 decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin.A 2009 report authored by Glenn Greenwald for the libertarian Cato Institute found drug use fell among teenagers in Portugal following decriminalization, but use ticked up for young adults ages 20 to 24.

Uruguay in 2012 legalized marijuana for personal use and sales to eliminate a major source of revenue for violent drug cartels. The government is now working to establish regulations for the sales and distribution of pot.

The varied approaches show that even though the US has been a major leader in the global war on drugs, its model of combating drug use and trafficking domestically is hardly the only option. Other countries have looked at the pros and cons and decided on vastly different drug policy regimes, with varying degrees of success.

What's the case for focusing more on rehabilitation and addiction treatment?

The most cautious reform to the drug war puts more emphasis on rehabilitation instead of locking up drug users in prison, but it does this without decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.

This is the approach recently embraced by the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, which plans to increase funding for rehabilitation programs in the coming years. The Obama administration also approved several legal and regulatory reforms, including Obamacare, that increased access to addiction treatment through health insurance. (However, the federal government still spends billions each year on conventional law enforcement operations against drugs.)

Other countries have taken even more drastic steps toward rehabilitation, some of which acknowledge that not all addicts can be cured of drug dependency. Several European countries prescribe and administer, with supervision, heroin to a small number of addicts who prove resistant to other treatments. These programs allow some addicts to satisfy their drug dependency without a large risk of overdose and without resorting to other crimes to obtain drugs, such as robbery and burglary.

Researchers credit the heroin-assisted treatment program in Switzerland, the first national scheme of its kind, with reductions in drug-related crimes and improvements in social functioning, such as stabilized housing and employment. But some supporters of the war on drugs, such as the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, argue that these programs give the false impression that drug habits can be managed safely, which could weaken the social stigma surrounding drug use and lead more people to try dangerous drugs.

For drug policymakers, the question is whether potentially breaking this stigma - and perhaps leading to more drug use - is worth the benefit of getting more people the treatment they need. Generally, drug policy experts agree that this tradeoff is worth it.

What's the case for decriminalizing drugs?

Mark Kleiman, one of the leading drug policy experts in the country, once opposed the idea of decriminalization, but he warmed up to it after looking at the evidence. "What I've learned since then," he said, "is nobody's got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably."

Kleiman said decriminalization could be paired with a focus on rehabilitation. He advocated for policies like 24/7 Sobriety Programs that require twice-daily alcohol testing for every single person convicted of drunk driving; anyone who fails the test is swiftly sent to jail for a few days. In South Dakota, alcohol-related traffic deaths declined by 33 percent between 2006 and 2007 - the highest decrease in the nation - after implementation of a 24/7 Sobriety Program.

In a paper, Kleiman analyzed a similar program in Hawaii for illicit drug users. Participants in that program had large reductions in positive drug tests and were significantly less likely to be arrested during follow-ups at three months, six months, and 12 months.
"Nobody's got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably"
A 2009 report from the libertarian Cato Institute found that after Portugal decriminalized all drugs, people were more willing to seek out rehabilitation programs. "The most substantial barrier to offering treatment to the addict population was the addicts' fear of arrest," Glenn Greenwald, who authored the paper, wrote. "One prime rationale for decriminalization was that it would break down that barrier, enabling effective treatment options to be offered to addicts once they no longer feared prosecution. Moreover, decriminalization freed up resources that could be channeled into treatment and other harm reduction programs."

As with heroin-assisted treatment programs, supporters of the war on drugs argue decriminalization legitimizes and increases drug use by removing the social stigma attached to it. But the research doesn't appear to support this point.

Some drug policy reform advocates and experts, however, are critical of decriminalization without the legalization of sales. Isaac Campos, a drug historian at the University of Cincinnati, argued that keeping the drug market in criminal hands lets them maintain a huge source of revenue. "The black market might even be fueled somewhat by the fact that people won't be arrested anymore, because maybe more people will use," Campos said. "We don't know if that's the case, but it's possible."

The concern for decriminalization supporters is that letting businesses come in and sell drugs could lead to aggressive marketing and advertising, similar to how the alcohol industry behaves today. This could lead to more drug use, particularly among problem users who would likely make up most of the demand for drugs. The top 10 percent of alcohol drinkers, for example, account for more than half the alcohol consumed in any given year in the US.

Decriminalization, then, is a bit of a compromise in reforming the war on drugs. It would reduce some of the incarceration caused by the drug war, but it would continue operations that seek to reduce drug trafficking and hopefully make a drug habit less affordable and accessible.

What's the case for legalizing drugs?

Given the concerns about the illicit drug market as a source of revenue for violent drug cartels, some advocates call for outright legalization of drug use, possession, distribution, and sales. Exactly what legalization entails, however, can vary.

Drug policy experts point out that there are several ways to legalize a drug. For example, in a January 2015 report about marijuana legalization for the Vermont legislature, some of the nation's top drug policy experts outlined several alternatives, including allowing possession and growing but not sales (like DC), allowing distribution only within small private clubs, or having the state government operate the supply chain and sell pot.

The report particularly favors a state-run monopoly for marijuana production and sales to help eliminate the black market and produce the best public health outcomes, since regulators could directly control prices and who buys pot. Previous research found that states that maintained a government-operated monopoly for alcohol kept prices higher, reduced access to youth, and reduced overall levels of use - all benefits to public health. A similar model could be applied to other drugs.

But Jeffrey Miron, an economist at Harvard University and the libertarian Cato Institute, supports full legalization, even it means the commercialization of drugs that are currently illegal. This, he said, is the only complete answer to eliminating the black market as a source of revenue for violent criminal groups.

When asked about full legalization, Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert who supports decriminalization, pushed back against the concept. He said full legalization could foster and encourage more problem drug users. For-profit drug businesses, just like alcohol and tobacco companies, would prefer heavy users, because the heavy users tend to buy way more of their product. In Colorado's legal marijuana market, for example, the heaviest 30 percent of users make up nearly 90 percent of demand for pot. "They are an industry with a set of objectives that flatly contradicts public interest," Kleiman said.

Miron argued that even if sales or distribution are legalized, the harder drugs could be taxed and regulated similarly to or more harshly than tobacco and alcohol, although he personally doesn't support that approach. "You could absolutely legalize it and have restrictions on commercialization," Miron said. "Those should be separate questions."

Kleiman argued the alcohol model has clear pitfalls. Alcohol still causes health problems that kill tens of thousands each year, it's often linked to violent crime, and some experts consider it one of the most dangerous drugs.

Still, some evidence suggests the alcohol model could be adjusted to reduce its issues. In a big review of the evidence, Alexander Wagenaar, Amy Tobler, and Kelli Komro concluded that increasing alcohol taxes - and, as a result, getting people to drink less alcohol - would significantly reduce violence, crime, and other negative repercussions of alcohol use.

But there's evidence that the drug war increases prices and decreases accessibility far beyond taxes and regulation could. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, found that prohibition multiplies hard drug prices by as much as 10 times, so legalization - by eliminating prohibition and allowing greater access to drugs - could greatly increase the rates of drug abuse.

The question of legalization, then, goes back once again to considerations about balancing the good and the bad: Is reducing the rates of drug abuse, particularly in the US, worth the carnage enabled by the money violent criminal organizations make off the black market for drugs? This is a common refrain of drug policy that's repeated again and again by experts: A perfect solution doesn't exist, so policymaking should focus on picking the best of many bad options.

"There are always choices," Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford University, explained. "There is no framework available in which there's not harm somehow. We've got freedom, pleasure, health, crime, and public safety. You can push on one and two of those - maybe even three with different drugs - but you can't get rid of all of them. You have to pay the piper somewhere."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US has been fighting a global war on drugs for decades. But as prison populations and financial costs increase and drug-related violence around the world continues, lawmakers and experts are...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today at 11 AM ET | Cashing In Our CHIPS: Community Colleges and the CHIPS and Science Act
RSVP Now

Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers

A salvage crew found needles hidden between a box spring and a mattress in a foreclosed house in Sanford, Maine. (Getty/Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald)

See also:

Introduction

President Richard Nixon called for a war on drugs in 1971, setting in motion a tough-on-crime policy agenda that continues to produce disastrous results today. Policymakers at all levels of government passed harsher sentencing laws and increased enforcement actions, especially for low-level drug offenses. The consequences of these actions are magnified for communities of color, which are disproportionately targeted for enforcement and face discriminatory practices across the justice system. Today, researchers and policymakers alike agree that the war on drugs is a failure. This fact sheet summarizes research findings that capture the need to replace the war on drugs with a fairer, more effective model that treats substance misuse as a public health issue-not a criminal justice issue.

The war on drugs

Incarcerating people for drug-related offenses has been shown to have little impact on substance misuse rates.⁵ Instead, incarceration is linked with increased mortality from overdose. In the first two weeks after their release from prison, individuals are almost 13 times more likely to die than the general population.⁶ The leading cause of death among recently released individuals is overdose.⁷ During that period, individuals are at a 129 percent greater risk of dying from an overdose than the general public.⁸

Incarceration has a negligible effect on public safety. Crime rates have trended downward since 1990, and researchers attribute 75 to 100 percent of these reductions to factors other than incarceration.⁹

Racial disparities

In the federal system, the average black defendant convicted of a drug offense will serve nearly the same amount of time (58.7 months) as a white defendant would for a violent crime (61.7 months).¹⁵

Economic impact

Since 1971, the war on drugs has cost the United States an estimated $1 trillion. In 2015, the federal government spent an estimated $9.2 million every day to incarcerate people charged with drug-related offenses-that's more than $3.3 billion annually.¹⁹

In contrast, marijuana legalization would save roughly $7.7 billion per year in averted enforcement costs and would yield an additional $6 billion in tax revenue. The net total-$13.7 billion-could send more than 650,000 students to public universities every year. ²³

The opioid epidemic

Between 2014 and 2016, opioid overdose deaths increased by approximately 48 percent nationwide. Though whites have the highest rates of fatal opioid overdoses, fatalities are on the rise among communities of color. During the same period, opioid deaths rose by nearly 53 percent among Latinos and 84 percent among blacks.²⁹

The opioid epidemic costs the United States an estimated $504 billion per year, including the costs to the health care and justice systems as well as the economic impact of premature fatalities.³²

Impact of interventions

Harm reduction

Drug courts

A longitudinal study of drug courts in Multnomah County, Oregon found that the program had long-lasting benefits. Fourteen years after enrolling in the program, drug court participants were 24 percent less likely to be rearrested for a drug-related offense and nearly 30 percent less likely to recidivate overall.⁵²

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) programs allow officers to divert individuals to treatment or social services, rather making low-level drug arrests. The model was pioneered in Seattle, where it has yielded positive results. Individuals diverted through the LEAD program were 58 percent less likely to be rearrested, as compared to similar individuals processed through the criminal justice system.⁵⁸

On average, LEAD participants spent 39 fewer days in jail per year and were 87 percent less likely to be incarcerated in prison than comparison groups.⁶²

For each participant, LEAD was associated with a $2,100 annual reduction in criminal and legal system costs. The average annual cost per nonparticipant increased by $5,961 in the same period.⁶³

Betsy Pearl is the campaign manager for Criminal Justice Reform at the Center for American Progress.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Explore The Series

In this Smart on Crime Explainers series, the Center for American Progress will break down some of the most current issues in criminal justice reform, explain their importance, point to additional trusted sources for further reading, and highlight where reforms are taking place on the ground. This series is designed to be useful for everyone-from those newest to the reform movement to policymakers and practitioners. Learn more about what it means to be smart on crime by reading the fact sheets below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today at 11 AM ET | Cashing In Our CHIPS: Community Colleges and the CHIPS and Science Act RSVP Now Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers See also: President Richard Nixon called for a war on drugs in 1971, setting in motion a tough-on-crime policy agenda that continues to produce disastrous results today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. So why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs - but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.

The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws in the early 1900s were directed at black men in the South. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. Today, Latino and especially black communities are still subject to wildly disproportionate drug enforcement and sentencing practices.

Nixon and the Generation Gap

In the 1960s, as drugs became symbols of youthful rebellion, social upheaval, and political dissent, the government halted scientific research to evaluate their medical safety and efficacy.

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a "war on drugs." He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants.

A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: "You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying. We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed led by Republican Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer.

In 1972, the commission unanimously recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendations.

Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.

Within just a few years, though, the tide had shifted. Proposals to decriminalize marijuana were abandoned as parents became increasingly concerned about high rates of teen marijuana use. Marijuana was ultimately caught up in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 1970s.

This video from hip hop legend Jay Z and acclaimed artist Molly Crabapple depicts the drug war's devastating impact on the Black community from decades of biased law enforcement.

The video traces the drug war from President Nixon to the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to the emerging aboveground marijuana market that is poised to make legal millions for wealthy investors doing the same thing that generations of people of color have been arrested and locked up for. After you watch the video, read on to learn more about the discriminatory history of the war on drugs.

The 1980s and 90s: Drug Hysteria and Skyrocketing Incarceration Rates

The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.

Public concern about illicit drug use built throughout the 1980s, largely due to media portrayals of people addicted to the smokeable form of cocaine dubbed "crack." Soon after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his wife, Nancy Reagan, began a highly-publicized anti-drug campaign, coining the slogan "Just Say No."

This set the stage for the zero tolerance policies implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s. Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who believed that "casual drug users should be taken out and shot," founded the DARE drug education program, which was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. The increasingly harsh drug policies also blocked the expansion of syringe access programs and other harm reduction policies to reduce the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS.

In the late 1980s, a political hysteria about drugs led to the passage of draconian penalties in Congress and state legislatures that rapidly increased the prison population. In 1985, the proportion of Americans polled who saw drug abuse as the nation's "number one problem" was just 2-6 percent. The figure grew through the remainder of the 1980s until, in September 1989, it reached a remarkable 64 percent - one of the most intense fixations by the American public on any issue in polling history. Within less than a year, however, the figure plummeted to less than 10 percent, as the media lost interest. The draconian policies enacted during the hysteria remained, however, and continued to result in escalating levels of arrests and incarceration.

Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, Health Secretary Donna Shalala's advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that "we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment" of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use "should be decriminalized."

At the height of the drug war hysteria in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a movement emerged seeking a new approach to drug policy. In 1987, Arnold Trebach and Kevin Zeese founded the Drug Policy Foundation - describing it as the "loyal opposition to the war on drugs." Prominent conservatives such as William Buckley and Milton Friedman had long advocated for ending drug prohibition, as had civil libertarians such as longtime ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. In the late 1980s they were joined by Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Federal Judge Robert Sweet, Princeton professor Ethan Nadelmann, and other activists, scholars and policymakers.

In 1994, Nadelmann founded The Lindesmith Center as the first U.S. project of George Soros' Open Society Institute. In 2000, the growing Center merged with the Drug Policy Foundation to create the Drug Policy Alliance.

The New Millennium: The Pendulum Shifts - Slowly - Toward Sensible Drug Policy

George W. Bush arrived in the White House as the drug war was running out of steam - yet he allocated more money than ever to it. His drug czar, John Walters, zealously focused on marijuana and launched a major campaign to promote student drug testing. While rates of illicit drug use remained constant, overdose fatalities rose rapidly.

The era of George W. Bush also witnessed the rapid escalation of the militarization of domestic drug law enforcement. By the end of Bush's term, there were about 40,000 paramilitary-style SWAT raids on Americans every year - mostly for nonviolent drug law offenses, often misdemeanors. While federal reform mostly stalled under Bush, state-level reforms finally began to slow the growth of the drug war.

Politicians now routinely admit to having used marijuana, and even cocaine, when they were younger. When Michael Bloomberg was questioned during his 2001 mayoral campaign about whether he had ever used marijuana, he said, "You bet I did - and I enjoyed it." Barack Obama also candidly discussed his prior cocaine and marijuana use: "When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently - that was the point."

Public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of sensible reforms that expand health-based approaches while reducing the role of criminalization in drug policy.

Marijuana reform has gained unprecedented momentum throughout the Americas. Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for adults. In December 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legally regulate marijuana. Canada legalized marijuana for adults in 2018.

In response to a worsening overdose epidemic, dozens of U.S. states passed laws to increase access to the overdose antidote, naloxone, as well as "911 Good Samaritan" laws to encourage people to seek medical help in the event of an overdose.

Yet the assault on American citizens and others continues, with 700,000 people still arrested for marijuana offenses each year and almost 500,000 people still behind bars for nothing more than a drug law violation.

President Obama, despite supporting several successful policy changes - such as reducing the crack/powder sentencing disparity, ending the ban on federal funding for syringe access programs, and ending federal interference with state medical marijuana laws - did not shift the majority of drug policy funding to a health-based approach.

Trump Era: DPA Pushes Forward Despite Challenges

The Trump administration threatened to take us backward toward a 1980s-style drug war. President Trump started building a wall to keep drugs out of the country, and called for harsher sentences for drug law violations and the death penalty for people who sell drugs. He also resurrected disproven "just say no" messaging aimed at youth.

2020 brought the additional challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic - a public health crisis that exposed the systemic issues within our society and revealed just how deeply the drug war permeates these systems. People who interact with these systems are unable to take the most basic of steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19 - including those in jail or prison, the homeless, people with substance use disorder, those who rely on access to medication-assisted treatment or medical marijuana, and immigrants. During this crisis, it is harder for them to engage in social distancing, and to access necessary medication assisted treatment - such as methadone or buprenorphine, or medical marijuana - as well as other health and harm reduction resources.

Despite these obstacles, we at the Drug Policy Alliance pushed forward with monumental drug policy reforms in the 2020 elections. In a historic, paradigm-shifting win and arguably the biggest blow to the war on drugs to date, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, the nation's first all-drug decriminalization measure. This confirms a substantial shift in public support in favor of treating drug use with health services rather than with criminalization.

Marijuana reform also won big. Voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota passed measures to legalize marijuana for adult use. It was also a historic year for medical marijuana, with victories in Mississippi and South Dakota.

All across the country, in liberal states and conservative ones, people made their voices heard. And they said loud and clear that it is time to end the drug war.

New Administration, New Opportunities

Now Joe Biden is President of the United States - and with every new administration brings new opportunities.

Biden has stated that it was a "mistake" to support legislation that ramped up the drug war and increased incarceration, including the '94 crime bill, when he was in the U.S. Senate. He now says we need a compassionate approach to problematic drug use.

At the Drug Policy Alliance, we agree. And we're ready to make change. We look forward to working together on a humane approach to drugs that reduces the role of criminalization and increases access to health based treatment and harm reduction services for people who need them.

We look forward to a future where drug policies are shaped by science and compassion rather than political hysteria.
Learn about DPA's victories in marijuana reform, criminal justice reform, and harm reduction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. So why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs - but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs.

# 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.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
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.headline
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration

# data[].attributes.subject
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Savage: Atlanta rapper really from UK, say US immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US officials say the Atlanta rapper came from the UK in 2005 and overstayed after his visa ran out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Understand the Immigration System in 8 Minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
Understand the Immigration System in 8 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understand the Immigration System in 8 Minutes

# data[].attributes.headline
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.subject
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Immigration in the US for Dummies

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Through the eyes of a child immigrant | Erik Gomez | TEDxPSU

# data[].attributes.headline
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis

# data[].attributes.subject
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between Borders: American Migrant Crisis | Times Documentaries | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.headline
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should the Government Allow Immigrants Who Are Here Illegally to Become US Citizens?

# 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.headline
My Secret Life As An Undocumented Immigrant

# data[].attributes.subject
My Secret Life As An Undocumented Immigrant

# data[].attributes.headline
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.subject
What It’s Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adriana had long looked forward to her 16th birthday - but when the date finally arrived, she celebrated not at home with her family and friends, but in a Texas center for immigrants that felt more like a prison.

"That day I didn't do anything. I just sat there and I cried and cried all day," Adriana recalls to Teen Vogue. Weeks earlier, she had fled El Salvador with her mother and sister, Allison, then 13, crossing the Rio Grande in order to escape violence. When they entered the United States, they didn't have any authorization, and when they were picked up by border patrol officials, they said they were seeking asylum.

The three have found themselves stuck in a system of family detention, where other women and children like themselves are kept under lock and key.

Until 2014, under the Obama administration, children and children traveling with families seeking asylum in the U.S., like Adriana (now 17) and Allison (now 15), were required to be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age while they awaited their court dates. In 2014, however, following a summer of Central American violence that saw tens of thousands of families and children (more than 68,000 families and 68,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by agents between fall 2013 and 2014) stopped by border patrol, those hoping for asylum began increasingly finding themselves sent to detention centers, often privately run, for stays that extended indefinitely. Then Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson explained at the time that detaining asylum seekers was seen as a method of deterring others from crossing the border. The new policy has led to a dramatically different experience for families seeking to immigrate. As of August 2016, more than 2,000 women and children were being held at facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

The facilities, two in Texas and a smaller one in Pennsylvania, are restrictive, dorm-like settings, often compared to cozier-looking prisons, where mothers and children as young as two weeks old are policed by guards. Meals, school, and recreation all take place within the center, and families share rooms with strangers. Some of the centers have features like playgrounds and salons. However, the inability to leave and the monotony of life take a toll on the mental health of some residents, with reports of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts amongst residents.

Adriana, Allison, and their mother were picked up by border patrol after entering Texas in August 2015. Shortly thereafter, they were sent to the South Texas Family Residential Center, a 2,400-bed center in the city of Dilley, a community that's become an immigrant detention capital. The girls expected to be released after a short stay to join their father, who had left El Salvador several years prior and was living and working in Dallas. But while Johnson has said that the average detainee is held for only 20 days, their family is one of a number whose stays have stretched past the one-year mark.

After more than a month at Dilley, a center staff member told Allison to begin packing their things to prepare to leave. "We got very excited. We thought that that was where we were going, that we were going to go home. But then when we got all our stuff ready and they took us to our room, we saw a bunch of other women that were leaving as well," Adriana tells Teen Vogue. Aware that her mother had not signed any release documents, she began to fear they were about to be deported. After several hours in that room, the group was taken to an airport and put on a plane to Pennsylvania.

"When we got on the plane, it was several of us families, including kids as young as five years old. On the plane we saw a lot of men, a lot of people in shackles and cuffs, and we were wondering how they could allow a kid as young as five to see this?" says Adriana.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that protocols have shifted and families are now, for the most part, transported on commercial flights. But when Adriana's family traveled, it was on ICE Air, one of the routine flights mainly comprised of people facing deportation, including those being returned to their home countries, some of whom had been convicted of crimes. Arriving at yet another facility, the much smaller Berks County Residential Center, a public center in the borough of Leesport, she worked to maintain hope while spending each day in a sparse room shared with another family, eating cafeteria food and spending a lot of time indoors.

"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon,'" Adriana recalls. "Why would it be so difficult for them to just get us a ticket home and let us go back to our family [in Dallas]?" Administrators offered them no timeline for when they might be able to leave.

Adriana was not the only Berks resident feeling in limbo and receiving little information about her case. U.S. family detention is a system that doesn't seem to operate under any easily understandable rhyme or reason, with women and their children given little information about the progress of their cases, when they might expect to be released, or who is making that decision. This was acknowledged even by a Department of Homeland Security Advisory Committee, which said in a report that "At the individual immigration officer level, it remains unclear what factors are used for custody determinations, and how they are applied." This summer and fall, a group of mothers in the facility even joined together for hunger strikes meant to protest and draw attention to their prolonged detainment. Adriana said she and her sister, Allison, were eager to take part but said the strikers had been told that any minors involved could potentially be transferred and separated from their mothers.

As the weeks at Berks stretched on, the sisters grew tired of the restrictions and monotony. "Everything was the same," says Allison. "We would have breakfast in the morning, and we would have school, and then we would go to the computers or take a nap, or later at night we would watch some TV, and we were so tired of it all." Even school offered little in the way of stimulation. She says that children between the ages of 12 and 18 were in the same class with no distinctions made between grade levels. As an 11th grader, Adriana felt hopelessly unchallenged, learning alongside 7th- and 8th-graders.

ICE officials tell Teen Vogue that children are given an educational assessment within three days of arriving, and an individual educational plan is developed for each child.

After nearly a year at Berks, in the fall of 2016, Adriana and Allison's mother, Carmen, who had frequently been ill, began to feel dizzy. Adriana went to get her something to drink and returned to see her condition rapidly worsening. "Her hands started getting really cold. She said that everything was going numb. Her face was really pale. Mom started to say that she was feeling so bad that she thought that she was dying. I kept saying to her, 'Mom, please don't say that,'" says Adriana.

Carmen was eventually taken to the hospital, where she had her gall bladder removed. One day after her operation, she was discharged and returned to Berks. Her daughters were appalled at what they saw as a total lack of regard for her needs during her recuperation. No provisions were made for her to have food appropriate for her recovery, they say, and they received no assistance from staff in helping her to the bathroom or visits with outside family members. ICE officials said they could not comment on residents' individual health records due to strict HIPAA provisions.

While the surgery may have been the lowest point in a grueling 13-month period, it presented a ray of hope. Adriana says Carmen's attorneys filed paperwork contesting her having to return to the facility after undergoing such a serious surgery. Shortly thereafter, the family was notified that they were being released to go live with their father in Dallas. "We just cried and we screamed and laughed, and we couldn't believe it. We hugged each other. It was just unbelievable. That day was October 5. It was the day before my birthday, so I couldn't believe it," Adriana recalls.

Today, Adriana and Allison are in the 11th and 9th grades and living in Texas with their mom and dad. "We are at home; we go to school; we are learning things we are supposed to be learning. We meet a bunch of different people. We're going to a bunch of different places like normal teenagers. We have phones," Adriana explains. "Most importantly, we are with our family. We are with our dad after 11 years of not seeing each other."

But their fears remain. Their case is still not settled, and while it was the Obama administration under which they were held, they know that President Donald Trump's policies on immigration may threaten them and millions of others. A judicial order currently keeps them from being deported; they are required to report to ICE for regular appointments. "We are very scared for all the promises that he [Trump] has made of deporting so many people because we're very scared to go back to our country. Things in our country are not OK," Adriana says.

Thoughts of the families remaining in custody weigh heavily on the girls' minds as well. "There are people that we arrived with at Berks when we first arrived there who are still detained there, and we always wonder, How is it possible?" Adriana says. For many, it seems, fear in their own nation has been replaced by fear in a new one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What It's Like to Be a Teen Living in an Immigration Detention Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"When we got there, we were all trying to stay very positive, thinking, 'OK, now we're going to leave this place really soon.'"

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Immigrant Families Separated at the Border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Can Do Right Now to Help Fight Trump’s Family-Separation Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the experts who are actively doing just that.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant"

# data[].attributes.subject
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teixeira says one distinction between an immigrant and a migrant can be seen in these visas, specifically in that immigrant visas are "related to lawful permanent-resident status."

Another distinction between the terms "migrant" and "immigrant" could be between the "outward-bound vs. inward-bound" viewpoint of the specific terms, he says. "The term 'migrant' focuses on the act of leaving one's country. The term 'immigrant' focuses on the act of settling in the receiving country," Teixeira says.
Can they be used interchangeably?
Conversationally and in the news, many people use the terms interchangeably. But can they be used interchangeably and mean the same thing?

While Teixeira says the terms can be used interchangeably casually, he says that "notable anti-immigration publications, especially in Europe, focus on using the term 'migrant' in a way that furthers their anti-immigrant viewpoint."

Using "migrant" in this way has led to the term carrying a "sinister, despective connotation," Teixeira says. "The term seems to be used, in such contexts, to undermine the permanence of the individual's life in the receiving country, and to play down any claim of, for instance, asylum, as there is increasingly an implication that 'migrants' tend to be economic migrants - and therefore only moving for work opportunities."

Teixeira tells Teen Vogue that this tactic is used to advance the idea that a migrant is a "temporary outsider" who is in the "receiving country to take and take without giving back." This rhetoric provides a way for people within a receiving country to "exclude noncitizens from being accepted as part of their local community."

For these reasons, Teixeira says he typically avoids using the term "migrant." He also notes that immigration law typically considers those people who are not on permanent-resident visas immigrants, even if they are here for seasonal work and plan on returning to their home country after they complete the seasonal work.

Teixeira says immigration lawyers in the U.S. typically focus on whether a person has "lawful permanent-resident status" as opposed to asking if they are an immigrant. He also states that immigration lawyers in the U.S. normally don't use the term "migrant" in an effort to avoid the "negative tone the term 'migrant' now carries."
Can a migrant be an immigrant?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between "Migrant" and "Immigrant"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ongoing highlight of immigration issues has led to confusion about the definition of "immigrant" and that of "migrant," as both terms have been in the news quite a bit.

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

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

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

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

# 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.headline
The Nineteenth Amendment – Women’s Right to Vote

# data[].attributes.subject
The Nineteenth Amendment – Women’s Right to Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Constitution Center - The 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fifteenth Amendment – The Right to Vote Not Denied by Race

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fifteenth Amendment – The Right to Vote Not Denied by Race

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Constitution Center - The 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SECTION. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Twenty-Sixth Amendment – Right to Vote at Age Eighteen from National 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Twenty-Sixth Amendment – Right to Vote at Age Eighteen from National 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Constitution Center - The 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SECTION. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

# data[].attributes.headline
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.subject
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just in the past few months, elections in the U.S. have been decided by hundreds of votes.

The 2016 presidential election tilted to Donald Trump with fewer than 80,000 votes across three states, with a dramatic impact on the country. Yet, only about 6 in 10 eligible voters cast ballots in 2016.

Loading...

Among the other 4 in 10 who did not vote was Megan Davis. The 31-year-old massage therapist in Rhode Island never votes, and she's proud of her record.

"I feel like my voice doesn't matter," she said on a recent evening at a park in East Providence, R.I. "People who suck still are in office, so it doesn't make a difference."

Davis might sound contrarian, but she's not. Although these days more Americans say they're enthusiastic about voting in a midterm election than at any point in the last two decades, come Election Day, nonvoters like Davis will still probably be the norm. For every 10 adults eligible to vote, only about four cast a ballot in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

You have to go back to the turn of the 20th century to find a midterm election when a solid majority of people voted (of course, back then, the right to vote was far more limited, so the eligible voting pool was smaller, more male and more white).

Every election cycle there's a lot of attention on who voted and why. But there's another important question: W ho is not voting - and what impact does that have?

The wealthy tend to vote more frequently. Nonvoters are more likely to be poor, young, Hispanic or Asian-American. Some research also indicates they're more likely to align with the Democratic Party.

It's debatable whether election results would be different if the entire population voted, but voting determines more than which candidate wins or loses. It ultimately influences which policies elected officials enact and whose interests candidates ignore and acknowledge.

"The one consistent finding from 1972 up through 2008 and in subsequent elections are that voters and nonvoters have different preferences on economic policies," said Jan Leighley, co-author with Jonathan Nagler of the book Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States.

Her research found that nonvoters are more likely, for example, to support a redistribution of wealth, housing bailouts and expanded social safety net programs.

Hundreds of thousands of nonvoters want to vote, but can't.

In 2016, 4 percent of registered voters did not vote because of "registration problems," according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. Many would-be voters face a range of barriers: voter ID laws, registration difficulty or criminal records. An estimated 10 percent of adults in Florida, for example, can't vote because of a felony conviction.

Some people who want to vote but can't have been removed from the voting rolls. Across the country, the rate at which people are being purged from the voting rolls, a process historically intended to keep records updated, has increased substantially compared to a decade ago, according to a report from the Brennan Center published this summer. The analysis found 4 million more people were purged between 2014 and 2016 than in the equivalent period between 2006 and 2008.

Legal obstacles are an important part of the nonvoter story, but there are many millions of Americans who can vote and yet choose not to. Their reasons are vast: Some are apathetic or too busy. Others don't like their choices, they don't think their vote matters, they think the system is corrupt, or they don't think they know enough to vote.

NPR traveled to four states where different factors affect why people aren't voting at high levels - age, income, education level, and habits.

Las Vegas: The young and disengaged

Shelby Mabis, a stocky blonde Marine corps veteran, remembers taking a government class in high school, but said he didn't learn anything about voting.

"From what all I know about voting is you show up to a poll place and you vote, but I don't know what I need to bring. I don't even know what happens during there," said Mabis, 23, outside of his mandatory political science class at a community college in North Las Vegas. And so he's never voted before.

Mabis is not unusual. There's a high density of people in his area who don't vote, as in many places.

Loading...

"Whenever young people are surveyed, there is a significant lack of knowledge about how exactly the government works, and, therefore, how their vote actually matters," said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE, an initiative at Tufts University that studies youth civic and political participation. She recently conducted a survey of working-class youth, and found that nearly 20 percent of young people said they don't think they know enough to be able to vote.

Her research has found that a majority of young people don't think voting is an effective way to change society. They also have major misconceptions about voting. Some think getting a citation for driving under the influence meant they could no longer vote.

But for Mabis, not voting is not just about education - it's about location.

"Right now, being away from home, I don't feel connected to the political system here at all," he said, referring to Nevada. "Since I'm not from here, I really feel like this isn't my home."

Mabis grew up in Missouri, and that's where he registered to vote. But he said it's not easy to stay connected to Missouri politics.

Analysts say this is common - young people are more often transient and so they often feel less invested in local elections.

Youth turnout nationwide for midterms is around 20 percent. For older adults, it's closer to 50 percent. When you look at who votes frequently over many years, the numbers look even starker.

Loading...

In over a dozen interviews, NPR heard similar reasons from young nonvoters for why they don't participate in politics: they don't feel their vote matters, they don't care, they're busy, or they don't feel like they know enough to vote.

But in some cases, they're also particularly eager to choose individual candidates instead of a party label. In 2016, many said they felt uninspired by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

So, like Jonas Rand, they didn't vote for president.

"I don't believe it is actually effective to vote as a main method of accomplishing political change," said Rand, a senior who studies anthropology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Rand follows the news closely, he considers himself a political activist, but he's not a fan of the current two-party political system.

"The system itself is stacked against the citizenry," he said.

He thinks Trump is a "fascist," but still he doesn't see how voting for Clinton would have changed anything, pointing out that Nevada's votes in the Electoral College went for Clinton anyhow.

But if young people don't vote, they're less likely to be targeted by political campaigns. And that worries community activist Francisco Morales.

"It's no coincidence that politicians care a lot about Medicare and Social Security. Seniors vote all the time," said Morales, state director for the Center for Community Change Action.

But, he says, issues that millennials care about, such as student debt, are often overlooked "because politicians are not afraid of our voting bloc."

West Virginia: The class divide

McDowell County, W.Va., is the county with the lowest voter turnout in a state that had one of the lowest turnout rates in the country in 2016.

In Welch, W.Va., the county seat, median household income hovers around $25,000 a year. Sixty one percent of registered voters in McDowell County are nonvoters, people who have voted zero or one time in the last eight elections, according to a review of data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor.

Tammy Lester, a 42-year-old fast food worker in McDowell County, W.Va., can't remember the last time she voted.

"We vote these people in and they don't help McDowell County," she said, as she walked along the deserted streets in the rundown downtown with her daughter. "There's nothing ... there's no jobs when our kids graduate, they have to leave."

Beyond a movie theater, a small pharmacy, and a couple of county offices, most of the storefronts are closed. A couple of years ago, the closest Walmart shut down, and now there's hardly anywhere locals can buy fresh produce.

Lester said politicians always ignore her county. "We are last on everything," she said.

"What good does it do, though, when they'll promise you anything and then it's a lie," she asked rhetorically.

Lester, like many nonvoters, never went to college. She stopped going to school in eighth grade. Research has shown the biggest and most persistent difference between who votes and who doesn't is education and economics. Class is a more accurate predictor of voting behavior than race, ethnicity, gender or any other demographic factor, according to Jan Leighley. Leighley writes in her book Who Votes Now? that nearly 80 percent of high-income earners vote, compared to barely 50 percent of low-income Americans.

"I just don't think my vote matters," said Josh Mullins, as he pushed a stroller along the street in McDowell County.

The last time Mullins, a 33-year-old unemployed former restaurant worker, remembers voting was in 2004 for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Nowadays, he sees no point, saying the system overrules what people want.

"Hillary [Clinton] won the popular vote and we still have Trump for president," he said. "To me it says ... it was just the [Electoral College] that put Trump in office." Voters in each state determined the Electoral College outcome.

Another major reason people say they don't vote is the time and effort taken away from other priorities.

"They're working several jobs, they're low-income, they're low-education, they're younger and they decide the costs are too high for them," explained Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida who tracks turnout at the U.S. Elections Project. "They decide they've got a lot of other things going on in their lives."

Loading...

El Paso, Texas: Low Latino turnout

At the Bowie Bakery, a popular institution in El Paso's Segundo Barrio, or second ward, Christina Rodriguez examined the glass cases filled with Mexican sweet breads, tres leches cakes, cupcakes, cookies and pastries. She ordered a batch of cookies for her 15-year-old's quinceañera and made her way to the door.

Rodriguez, a 38-year-old single, working mom, is always on the go. It's why, she says, she doesn't vote.

"I don't even know who's running,'" she said, laughing with a bit of embarrassment. "I should look into it, but, honestly, I haven't given it more than a thought."

She doesn't have time, she said, to look up the candidates, research their platforms and head to the polls.

"I'd rather not show up and do an uneducated guess," she said. "I don't want to make a mistake."

Growing up, her parents never voted either. Voting, she said, wasn't part of the culture in this border city where over 80 percent of residents identify as Latino.

"Voting is often taught and it may take a couple generations to become a habit," said Lisa Wise, the elections administrator in El Paso.

Some immigrant families are still unfamiliar with voting. Experts suggest this might also explain why Asian-American voter participation is low, despite high education levels. The adult Asian-American population is largely still foreign-born.

"I do what I do to make my life better," said Rodriguez. "I don't depend on (politicians) to change things for me."

But analysts say low Latino turnout in Texas isn't occurring in a vacuum. Texas has long been home to one of the worst voter turnout rates in the country; 51.6 percent of Texans voted in 2016.

Research has shown that competition energizes the electorate, and Texas is largely not seen as a competitive state, particularly in presidential years. Locals say they have a joke in El Paso that the only time a major presidential candidate passes through the city is when he's driving to New Mexico.

Loading...

"Texas has not had the swing state machine that we've seen in other places around the country," said Mindy Romero, director of the California Civic Engagement Project at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. "There aren't those resources, money, and investment coming into the state to get every voter." This is also an issue in California, the state with the largest Latino population.

Broad political apathy seeps into local and statewide elections, too. At the Bowie Bakery in El Paso, most customers didn't know that their native son, Beto O'Rourke, is running in a closely watched Senate race against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. They didn't know that if O'Rourke wins he would be the first Democratic senator elected from Texas in a quarter century.

It also doesn't help engage voters that El Paso has had a history of corrupt elected officials.

Texas is undoubtedly one of the highest nonvoting states in the country, but poor Latino turnout goes far beyond the borders of Texas.

Loading...

More than half of eligible Latinos nationally don't vote. In the last presidential election, Latinos represented 12 percent of eligible voters nationwide, but only 9 percent of the overall electorate on Election Day.

Many analysts predicted that Donald Trump's offensive rhetoric about Latinos would mobilize records numbers of Latino voters in 2016, but turnout remained relatively even with 2012.

"You may be upset about somebody like Donald Trump and what you're hearing," said Romero. "But if you don't see how or why ... politicians and the political landscape matters for you ... you don't think you have agency,"

Romero points to two main reasons so many Latinos are nonvoters: the disconnect they feel with the political process and the anemic investment in outreach.

But Romero doesn't blame the Latino community, she and Leighley both point out that candidates rarely try to reach new voters.

"This idyllic notion that campaigns are out there to get everyone to vote is simply not true," said Leighley. "They need one more vote than their opponent, they will go to people based on those voter files that they know have voted before and they focus on them."

It's more expensive and time consuming to chase down infrequent voters.

Methodology
NPR used data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor, to analyze and illustrate what differentiates nonvoters from frequent nonvoters. Because our data set is derived from a voter file, it's limited to registered nonvoters, as opposed to unregistered nonvoters. We defined a "nonvoter" as someone who voted in zero or one of the last eight elections, and a "frequent voter" as someone who voted in six, seven or eight of the last eight elections. Those eight elections includes both primary and general elections, which means the data goes back to approximately 2010 nationwide, varying slightly in some states like those with off-year elections. So, if someone voted one time in the last eight years, perhaps for Barack Obama in 2008 or Donald Trump in 2016, but did not participate in any other elections, they would be characterized as a "nonvoter."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On The Sidelines Of Democracy: Exploring Why So Many Americans Don't Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent midterms, 4 in 10 eligible voters cast ballots. Nonvoters talk of apathy, disgust, barriers and other reasons. But those who don't vote, and their interests, can be ignored by candidates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

Charles Allen had attempted to pass his bill once before, in 2015, but it died in committee. This time, he said, he thinks there's more support. Since the early 2010s, a handful of communities, mostly clustered in the suburbs of D.C., have already lowered the voting age to 16 for local elections, and other cities are considering similar legislation.

As young people across the country have staged protests and pressured their lawmakers for action on gun violence, largely in response to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, the question of when teens ought to have an electoral voice has resurfaced.

Constitutional law expert Michael Morley said states, for the most part, are empowered to define their own electorates. States have broader power than Congress to set the voting age for state and local elections, though Congress regulates federal offices, he added.

Here's a look at the issue, and what it might mean for the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Why is the voting age 18?
In 1970, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of which lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18. After the amendments passed, states had one of three options, Morley said. They could comply, they could ignore the new law and wait until then-Attorney General John Mitchell enforced the rule by suing the states, or they could do what Oregon chose to do: preemptively sue Mitchell on the grounds that the amendments were unconstitutional.

Later that year, the Supreme Court heard arguments for Oregon v. Mitchell, and ultimately mostly ruled in favor of the state; the Court said Congress only had the authority to legislate voting over previously passed amendments which regulated voting rights (the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, for example), and over federal elections. State and local elections, the Supreme Court said, were regulated solely by the states.

But nationally, a movement was growing in favor of lowering the voting age, Morley said. The nation had been embroiled in the Vietnam War for years, and the sentiment that began to emerge was that if young men (and women) were old enough to fight in the U.S. military, they were old enough to vote. In 1971, Congress proposed the 26th amendment, and it was ratified by three quarters of the states in a matter of months - the fastest ratification of an amendment to date, Morley said.
Who has lowered the voting age since then?
According to Brandon Klugman, campaign coordinator at Vote16USA, an organization which lobbies for lowering the voting age, currently four other cities have laws allowing 16- or 17-year-olds to vote: three Maryland cities - Takoma Park, Greenbelt, and Hyattsville - allow 16-year-olds to vote in local elections; and Berkeley, California, allows 16-year-olds to vote in school board elections only.

Many states also allow 17-year-olds to vote in state and presidential primary elections if they turn 18 before the general election, according to FairVote.
Why the D.C. campaign is complicated
D.C. is a unique case. Though it operates as a city, it's also a district under federal control. So, while the 50 states can change their individual voting age requirements, only D.C. is also under the watchful eye of Congress, which can overturn legislation from the city if it wants to, Morley said.
What supporters say
Allen has a laundry list of reasons he believes the voting age is too high. Among them: 16-year-olds should have a stake in laws which affect them, such as education policy; research suggests that a strong predictor for voting habits is a record of previous voting; and as student activists around the country have demonstrated, many teenagers, "have very well thought out positions and frankly, in many cases, they're leading the adults," Allen said.

For Allen, however, perhaps his greatest motivation is that many 16-year-olds are taxpayers who cannot vote for their own elected representation. That issue speaks strongly to a councilmember in D.C., which does not have voting representation in Congress.

Allen has re-introduced his bill at a time when a youth movement is unfolding across the country, with students and teenagers are participating in advocacy, activism, and even government itself.

The national voting rights advocacy group FairVote supports Allen's bill. "Sixteen and 17-year-olds are affected by the same policies or even policies in a different way than older voters are," said Dave O'Brien, legal fellow at FairVote. "Sometimes, they'll be affected by those policies longer," like the environment, the national debt, and decisions about war. "It seems only right that they should have some sort of input into it," he added.
What critics say
Some critics say 16-year-olds aren't mature enough or don't have enough life experience.

"The arguments for lowering the voting age to 18 don't entirely translate to lowering it to 16," Morley said, referring to the 1970 campaign. "You had the notion that 18 was already adulthood in several other contexts," such as facing the draft, establishing households, and starting families. But Morley doesn't necessarily think those arguments apply to 16-year-olds, who in most cases are still legally required to attend school and generally depend on parental support.

Allen doesn't see legal adulthood as relevant.

"I think that young people have a stake in election outcomes. At age 16 your relationship with the law changes dramatically, from being able to drive on city streets to having a job and paying taxes," he said.

"There are a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds that also walk around everyday with adult responsibilities," Allen said. "Not only are they having jobs, they're a part of helping run a family. Some of them may even have kids of their own. When you think about what those responsibilities are, why shouldn't they have a voice in helping shape that?"
Why it matters
Historically, political parties have struggled to get 18- to 24-year-olds to show up on Election Day. According to census data, 50.9 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population voted in the 1964 presidential election. While turnout was similar in the subsequent presidential election, the percentage of voters in that age bracket hasn't been as high since. The percentage didn't crack 40 percent in the 2016 election.

Despite that history, Allen thinks young people are demonstrating a willingness to get engaged. He pointed to Takoma Park, Maryland, as one example. A FairVote analysis of the 2013 election in Takoma Park showed that about 17 percent of 16- and 17-year-old eligible voters cast a ballot in the local election. That's about double the 8.5 percent of eligible 18-year-olds.

"They've shown that they will vote, and they'll vote repeatedly which is good for civics. They're getting engaged now and becoming lifelong voters," Allen said.

At FairVote, O'Brien said that it's possible that allowing teens to vote could impact the voting decisions of the larger electorate. "There might be concerns that older voters might perceive younger voters, or at least that section of the electorate, as somehow less legitimate because they're too immature," O'Brien said. "But you have that same concern whenever a new group is a brought to the electorate, whether it's women or African-Americans."

Neither Allen nor O'Brien sees the issue as partisan - "there are young people who are going to be of all political persuasions," Allen said - but Morley isn't as convinced.

Given that data suggests today's youth tend to vote more Democratic, Morley says jurisdictions' efforts to lower the voting age "could be seen not so much as an attempt to rectify some injustice, but instead as a means of trying to stack the electoral deck" in favor of Democrats.
What's next?
Klugman at Vote16USA said many states are making a good effort to increase voter turnout among young people. Currently, 13 states and D.C. allow for voter pre-registration at age 16. In California, a new law will go into effect this month, in which 16 and 17-year-olds will be pre-registered to vote when they get a driver's license. They'll have to opt out if they don't want to register.

And Klugman said that state legislators in at least three other states - New York, Virginia and Minnesota - have introduced bills to lower the voting age in state and local elections, federal elections, or both.

The next step for the D.C. bill is a hearing at the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, which Allen chairs. He said since four of the five committee members co-introduced the bill, he anticipates it will be voted on fairly quickly this summer. It will then move to a vote before the entire city council, and, if successful, to Mayor Muriel Bowser's desk (Bowser's press secretary, LaToya Foster, said the mayor will support the bill).

By 2020, Allen hopes 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in both local and federal races.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this month, a Washington, D.C., city councilman proposed what hasn't been a widely embraced idea in recent years: lowering the voting age threshold in local and federal elections from 18 to 16.

# data[].attributes.headline
Felons in Florida Regained Voting Rights on Tuesday

# data[].attributes.subject
Felons in Florida Regained Voting Rights on Tuesday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Felons in Florida Regained Voting Rights on Tuesday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The battleground state of Florida just became even more unpredictable now that felons in the state have regained the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer

# data[].attributes.headline
The Voting Age Should Be Lowered to 16-Years-Old

# data[].attributes.subject
The Voting Age Should Be Lowered to 16-Years-Old

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this op-ed, Melina Fike, a leader of Berkeley, California's Vote 16 Campaign and junior at Berkeley High School explains that the momentum of the #NeverAgain movement could spark engagement for young activist to lower the voting age in their states.
During the media surge after the Parkland school shooting, various adults in my life felt the need to express to me their amazement about the young activists in Florida. The concept that a group of high school students could be so motivated and effective was clearly something they had never seen before. While I share in the celebration of these students' strength in response to this tragedy, I am not shocked by their eloquence.

As a 16-year-old who has witnessed the informed perspectives of my peers in Berkeley, California, I am more than aware of the raw power that comes from the ideas of students. The discussions that youth are having, both locally and nationally, are difficult to view if you're standing on the other side of this daunting gap between two generations.

Some of the adults in our lives who make decisions concerning school safety are the same ones who are shocked by the outspoken Parkland victims, who are now activists at the center of a national debate. These adults are the same people who make decisions on how to educate students on safety, whether it's about practicing safe sex, healing after a hate crime, or responding to someone bringing an assault weapon on your school's campus.

So why, to these adults, does the aftermath of this school shooting feel different? It's because the narratives of the Parkland victims are demanding attention, and this is something our country is not used to.

In Takoma Park, Hyattsville, Greenbelt, and Berkeley, four cities with liberal reputations and progressive voting right stances, teenagers are being listened to, perhaps more often than in other parts of the country. These cities let 16 and 17 year olds vote in local elections. In 2016, I joined a small group of politically frustrated high school students that decided to organize for a lower school board voting age in Berkeley. After seeing the high level of engagement so many youth in our city already had, we knew it was unacceptable for us not to have democratic influence on the decisions that affect not only the ways our public schools are run, but how we are kept safe at school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Voting Age Could Be Lowered in Response to #NeverAgain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
16-year-olds can already vote in four cities. and young activists are trying to lower the voting age nationwide in response to #NeverAgain.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nonvoters Have Valid Criticisms of the United States Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Nonvoters Have Valid Criticisms of the United States Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The system isn't in place where we can vote for our liberation. It's in place to reform itself for the better domestically. We don't demand more from the system because the system was never designed to help everyone in the first place," Ebony Short, a black 22-year-old cofounder of Georgia State University Panthers for Black Feminism, tells Teen Vogue, speaking about how the U.S. electoral system, built in the 18th century, was created to protect the interests of states with large slave populations.

"Choosing not to vote, as I have done in the past and will do now, is the active decision to control - in some part - how I am engaging (or [not engaging]) a system I never opted to be a part of," explains Da'Shaun Harrison, a 22-year-old black organizer, writer, and former student at Morehouse College. "There are ways to be civically engaged without legitimizing this two-party system, so choosing to take ownership of my right to not legitimize this system via electoral politics is a moral and just - morally just - decision."

These young folks have valid reasons for deciding not to play further into U.S. capitalism, imperialism, and white supremacy. Many feel as if voting for legislation, initiatives, or policies that have proven to be inefficient for those on the margins is a vote for a continued system of disenfranchisement. These young black and brown folks are aware of the forces of white supremacy that they must experience, and have chosen the act of not voting as a means to make space to fight for a new and better world.

Some of those who abstain from voting donate their vote to incarcerated or undocumented folks, doing so with an understanding that the electoral system is one that is rooted in a need to protect state interests by keeping these vulnerable populations from having a voice. They find other ways to engage with their communities, outside of the voting booth.

"Nonvoters are behind the free-food drives, hurricane relief efforts, political education meetings, and more. Voting has an impact, but the people have the power," Gayla Tillman, a black 21-year-old organizer from Atlanta, and a student at Georgia State, tells Teen Vogue.

These decisions aren't made without an understanding of very real voter-suppression tactics at play throughout the country and the privilege that comes with being a U.S. citizen who can vote. These are black and brown young folks who have grown up in the Black Lives Matter era, who are looking to socialism and communism for answers about what a new social and economic reality could look like. They are people whose political identities and beliefs range outside the mainstream: Some are prison abolitionists, Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists. Many are young folks who have been on the front lines of social change and protests and refuse to compromise their politics for the sake of liberalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"It's a System I Never Opted to Be a Part Of": Young People Tell Us Why They Didn't Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an op-ed for "Teen Vogue," Clarissa Brooks looks at how imperialism, white supremacy, and other issues factor into decisions not to vote in elections.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Fight to Vote: America's Turbulent Voting Rights History

# data[].attributes.subject
The Fight to Vote: America's Turbulent Voting Rights History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fight to Vote: America’s Turbulent Voting Rights History [Interactive Timeline] | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States prides itself as a beacon of democracy on the world stage. But universal suffrage has been elusive throughout its history. Teach with the Lowdown Nonfiction analysis, writing/discussion prompts and multimedia projects. Browse our entire lesson plan collection here. Voting rights history lesson plan (PDF) From the early years of the republic, when voting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Voting Rights Act of 1965

The 1965 Enactment

By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

President Johnson signed the resulting legislation into law on August 6, 1965. Section 2 of the Act, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis. Among its other provisions, the Act contained special enforcement provisions targeted at those areas of the country where Congress believed the potential for discrimination to be the greatest. Under Section 5, jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place.

The Voting Rights Act had not included a provision prohibiting poll taxes, but had directed the Attorney General to challenge its use. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Between 1965 and 1969 the Supreme Court also issued several key decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 and affirming the broad range of voting practices that required Section 5 review. As the Supreme Court put it in its 1966 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Act:

Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat wide-spread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327-28 (1966).

The 1970 and 1975 Amendments

Congress extended Section 5 for five years in 1970 and for seven years in 1975. With these extensions Congress validated the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the scope of Section 5. During the hearings on these extensions Congress heard extensive testimony concerning the ways in which voting electorates were manipulated through gerrymandering, annexations, adoption of at-large elections, and other structural changes to prevent newly-registered black voters from effectively using the ballot. Congress also heard extensive testimony about voting discrimination that had been suffered by Hispanic, Asian and Native American citizens, and the 1975 amendments added protections from voting discrimination for language minority citizens.

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.

The 1982 Amendments

Congress renewed in 1982 the special provisions of the Act, triggered by coverage under Section 4 for twenty-five years. Congress also adopted a new standard, which went into effect in 1985, providing how jurisdictions could terminate (or "bail out" from) coverage under the provisions of Section 4. Furthermore, after extensive hearings, Congress amended Section 2 to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the Section without having to prove discriminatory purpose.

The 2006 Amendments

Congress renewed the special provisions of the Act in 2006 as part of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara Jordan, William Velazquez and Dr. Hector Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. The 2006 legislation eliminated the provision for voting examiners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting Rights | Articles and Essays | Civil Rights History Project | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Reconstruction ended in 1877, states across the South implemented new laws to restrict the voting rights of African Americans. These included onerous requirements of owning property, paying poll taxes, and passing literacy or civics exams. Many African Americans who attempted to vote were also threatened physically or feared losing their jobs. One of the major goals of the Civil Rights Movement was to register voters across the South in order for African Americans to gain political power. Most of the interviewees in the Civil Rights History Project were involved in voter registration drives, driving voters to the polls, teaching literacy classes for the purposes of voter registration, or encouraging local African Americans to run as candidates.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come — and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.subject
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come — and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, granting women the right to vote.

The founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create.

But women, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans were systematically denied the right to vote for centuries.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Women won the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified 100 years ago on August 18, 1920.

Voting is one of America's most cherished democratic liberties, and it has a long and storied history. While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of the democracy and perfect union they sought to create, the right to vote was denied for many populations for centuries of US history.

In the beginning of the republic, voting was mainly restricted to property-owning white men, which would later be extended to all men. While the right to vote was eventually granted to women with the 19th Amendment in 1920, white women were the main beneficiaries.

Men and women of color would continue to fight to battle discriminatory voting practices for decades even after technically receiving the right to vote, culminating in the historic civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which led to landmark legislation that transformed American voting rights.

But even today, activists and civil rights groups are continuing to fight voting laws they argue are discriminatory.

Here's a look at how voting rights in America have evolved over the centuries, and what issues remain today:

In 1856, North Carolina became the last state to remove property ownership as a requirement for voting, meaning all white men could vote by this time.
Source: Constitutional Rights Foundation

After the Civil War and the end of slavery, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to extend citizenship to freed slaves. The amendment directs that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

This amendment gave freed African Americans citizenship, but they wouldn't get the right to vote for two more years. And even then, Southern states used a variety of tactics to suppress African American turnout for nearly a century afterwards.
Source: Library of Congress

Women's suffrage activist Susan B. Anthony was famously arrested along with 15 other women, and prosecuted for attempting to vote in the presidential election of 1872 in Rochester, New York. President Trump pardoned Susan B. Anthony on August 18, 2020.

In Detroit, former slave and fellow activist Sojourner Truth was similarly turned away when she demanded a ballot at her polling place.

The next several decades would see a surge in women's suffrage activism, including marches, lobbying, and more militant methods such as breaking windows of buildings during marches, and going on hunger strikes.
Source: History Channel

The United States has a long, painful, and complicated history with its treatment of Native Americans, and voting rights is no exception.

In 1876, a federal court ruled that Native Americans could not vote because they were not properly citizens under the 14th Amendment.

Ten years later, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native Americans to gain citizenship if they renounced their tribal citizenship, and created a process for Native Americans to apply for naturalization in 1890.

Native Americans and other racial minority groups who had served in World War I were also granted citizenship and the right to vote in the late 1910s.

While Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans in 1924, many state-level discriminatory policies - such as banning people living on a reservation or enrolled in a tribe from voting, or instituting fees and "competency tests" - kept them from the polls for decades.
Source: Native American Voting Rights Fund

On many DC license plates you'll see the phrase "taxation without representation" - and it's because residents of the District of Columbia paid taxes, but couldn't vote in presidential elections until the early 1960s.

While DC is allotted three electoral votes in presidential election years, they have no representation in Congress. A 1978 amendment to give DC congressional representatives ultimately failed in Congress.
Source: Time

The NVRA streamlined the voter registration process by allowing people to register to vote while obtaining or renewing driver's licenses at Departments of Motor Vehicles or other public assistance centers instead of having to apply by mail.
Source: US Department of Justice

While voting rights in America have come a long way toward ensuring equal ballot access for all, many scholars and activists argue that the overtly racist Jim Crow laws of the past have given way to discriminatory policies, like voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, polling place closures, and limits to pre-registration.

Strict voter ID laws and other restrictions enacted by Texas and North Carolina in the wake of the Shelby County v. Holder were struck down in federal court, with one federal appeals court finding that North Carolina's law targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision."

Among voting issues and controversies in recent years, in 2018, former Georgia Secretary of State and current Governor Brian Kemp was accused of putting 53,000 voter registration applications "on hold" for mismatched names, and incorrectly purging 340,000 voters from the rolls.

In North Dakota, where most Native Americans who reside on reservations only have a PO box, the US Supreme Court upheld a state law requiring voters to bring an ID to the polls with a residential address. The ruling left Native communities scrambling to obtain proper IDs just weeks before the election.

Along with the predominately non-white citizens of American territories like Guam and American Samoa, almost 6 million taxpaying Americans with felony convictions were barred from voting in the 2018 midterms due to state-level felon disenfranchisement laws.

In November 2018, voters in Florida approved a constitutional amendment overturning the state's disenfranchisement law for good, allowing around 1 million formerly disenfranchised residents to vote. The following year, the Florida Legislature passed a law that requires people with felony convictions to pay off any court fines and fees before they can register to vote, which critics say discriminates against poorer residents who cannot afford to do so. In July 2020, the Supreme Court allowed Florida to keep this law in place - it continues to be appealed.
Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, Business Insider, Brennan Center for Justice, Rolling Stone, Associated Press, The New York Times

Voting 2018 Midterm Elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 19th Amendment passed 100 years ago today. The evolution of American voting rights in 244 years shows how far we've come - and how far we still have to go

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the founding fathers saw voting as a fundamental component of democracy, they only granted the right to vote to white, male property owners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Voting Rights Act is a historic civil rights law that is meant to ensure that the right to vote is not denied on account of race or color.This will be the first election in 50 years without full protection of the right to vote for minority voters.

# data[].attributes.headline
7 Ways To Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution Today

# data[].attributes.subject
7 Ways To Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution Today

# 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.headline
These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash… Here’s How We Can Help

# data[].attributes.subject
These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash… Here’s How We Can Help

# 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.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.headline
When the Mermaids Cry: The Great Plastic Tide

# data[].attributes.subject
When the Mermaids Cry: The Great Plastic Tide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Claire Le Guern
Last updated in November 2019.

# 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.headline
An Engineering Wunderkind's Ocean Plastics Cleanup Device Hits A Setback

# data[].attributes.subject
An Engineering Wunderkind's Ocean Plastics Cleanup Device Hits A Setback

# 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
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.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.headline
Plastic pollution: how humans are turning the world into plastic

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

# 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.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.headline
Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? 

# 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.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.headline
If You Won't, We Will: Youth Action on Climate

# data[].attributes.subject
If You Won't, We Will: Youth Action on Climate

# 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.headline
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity

# data[].attributes.subject
Electricity Map: Mapping the climate impact of electricity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.

# 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.headline
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed

# data[].attributes.subject
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO

# data[].attributes.headline
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change

# 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.headline
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it?

# data[].attributes.subject
The world struck a major climate deal in Poland. So, what’s in it?

# 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.headline
The climate change lawsuit that could stop the U.S. government from supporting fossil fuels

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

# 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.headline
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Explained In 5 Minutes Featuring Al Gore

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

# data[].attributes.headline
To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher

# data[].attributes.subject
To truly fight climate change, we need to set our sights higher

# 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.headline
Climate Science, Explained in 10 Graphics

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

# 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.headline
What Is Climate Change? Everything You Need To Know About Global Warming

# data[].attributes.subject
What Is Climate Change? Everything You Need To Know About Global Warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Like what the “greenhouse effect” actually is.

# 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.headline
Young journalists fight censorship with the help of Student Press Law Center

# data[].attributes.subject
Young journalists fight censorship with the help of Student Press Law Center

# 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.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.headline
Should Hate Speech be Protected as Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Hate Speech be Protected as Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Freedom Forum's mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

# data[].attributes.headline
How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes

# data[].attributes.subject
How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Incendiary rhetoric has seeped into 2016 presidential politics, surfaced in the public debate over accepting Syrian refugees into the U.S. and popped up repeatedly following terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has expressed concern about the potential for an anti-Islam backlash similar to one that followed the Sept. 11 attacks and vowed that the Justice Department would punish "actions predicated on violent talk."

"Advocates are certainly reporting to us an increased concern around incidents, threats and potential hate crimes that they're bringing to our attention," Vanita Gupta, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

But the spectrum of hateful expression is broad, encompassing acts that are clearly illegal - such as firebombing a mosque - as well as vague and distant threats that, while noxious, might well be protected by the First Amendment.

Establishing the line between protected speech and a federal hate crime can be challenging for prosecutors and courts and depends on the facts of each particular case. Here's a look at how federal law treats hate speech:
WHAT DO FEDERAL LAWS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?
The signature hate crime statute - the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act - makes it illegal to physically harm someone based on their race, religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation, among other characteristics.
DOESN'T THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW ME TO SAY WHATEVER I WANT?
To a large degree, yes. The First Amendment offers broad free speech protections and permits membership in organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that espouse hateful ideologies.

But while the Constitution gives latitude to hate speech and offensive rhetoric, court decisions in the last century have carved out notable - though narrow - exceptions to free speech guarantees and authorized prosecution for language deemed to fall out of bounds.

Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against those protections, regardless of a person's race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a riot.

A 1942 Supreme Court decision called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - which involved a Jehovah's Witness who cursed at a city marshal, calling him a "damned fascist" - articulated a "fighting words" doctrine that restricted insults intended to provoke an "immediate breach of the peace."
ARE THREATS AGAINST THE LAW?
They certainly can be, but that depends on various factors. Determining what constitutes an actual threat - as opposed to a vague and far-off remark - is a tricky, fact-specific question.

In Virginia v. Black, a seminal 2003 Supreme Court decision on cross-burning, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described "true threats" as statements in which "the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals."

In other words, the more specific and immediate the threat, the more likely it'll be regarded as illegal.

"It's one thing to say, 'Kill all the Jews,' versus 'Kill that Jew who was my kid's school teacher who gave him an F,'" said James Weinstein, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University.

Justice Department officials say context matters greatly in such cases, making it hard to generalize too broadly. Hateful threats that the target interprets as a joke, or that are discussed among friends but not leveled at anyone in particular, likely would be harder to prosecute federally.

"It requires specificity, it requires intent and it requires a certain sense of imminence," Gupta said.
HOW OFTEN ARE SUCH CASES INVESTIGATED?
The FBI says local law enforcement agencies reported 5,479 hate crime incidents in 2014.

In a Dec. 3 speech to the Muslim Advocates organization, Lynch said that more than 220 defendants had been charged with hate crime offenses in the last six years. Those include a Utah man who threatened an interracial family with death and a man who admitted tying a rope around the neck of a James Meredith statue on the University of Mississippi campus.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the attorney general said, the Justice Department has headed more than 1,000 investigations into acts of "anti-Muslim hatred" and bigoted behavior, leading to more than 45 prosecutions - including of a New York man who e-mailed death threats to an employee at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and of a Texas man convicted in 2013 of threatening to bomb an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Among incidents in the last two months: a caretaker at a Philadelphia mosque said he found a severed pig's head outside on the sidewalk, and CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group, reported getting a hate letter with a white powdery substance at its Washington offices.

"I think, sadly, that number is going to continue," Lynch said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How federal law draws a line between free speech and hate crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Incendiary rhetoric has seeped into 2016 presidential politics, surfaced in the public debate over accepting Syrian refugees into the U.S. and popped up repeatedly following terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.