Stuff YOU Should Know
Solving the Poverty Problem
If you had to take a guess, how long would you say it would take to end world poverty? A hundred years? A thousand? Actually, the unofficial global “deadline” to end world poverty has been set at 2030. And it looks like we’re not going to make it.
In 2015, a group of world leaders sat down together and established 17 Sustainable Development Goals: a combined plan to end global poverty. Every year, progress toward these goals is measured by the Gates Foundation. Unfortunately, however, this year’s scorecard shows that the world is nowhere close to being on-track to achieve these goals. That’s not to say that significant progress isn’t being made. It just isn’t enough. In other words, the percentage of people around the world who live below the poverty line is dropping, but not quickly enough to get it to zero by 2030.
Widespread poverty is linked to all kinds of other problems, such as high maternal mortality rate, high child mortality rate, lack of education, and more. But is it an impossible problem to solve? The Gates Foundation says no. But solving it won’t be easy. It will require addressing some of the root causes of poverty, such as lack of access to health care, discriminatory practices toward women and girls, and climate change – all of which are very complicated issues in and of themselves. And it will require leaders such as the United States invest more resources into making these solutions a reality, for the good of the planet as a whole.
What Do You Think? Use Internet resources to help you locate the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Which one of the Goals do you think is most critical to solving world poverty, and why?
States Take a Stand on Vaping
Last week, btw looked at the potential dangers of vaping and the federal government’s plan to make e-cigarettes less attractive to young people. But some states aren’t willing to wait on the White House and are taking first steps on their own to address the vaping crisis. This month, Michigan and New York have both issued emergency bans on flavored e-cigarettes. This is the same step that the federal government is planning to take. The thought behind it: if e-cigarettes only come in tobacco flavors, rather than flavors like mango or bubblegum, they will be less appealing to young people. And this is a critical step, because teenagers are vaping in record numbers: up to a quarter of kids ages 12 to 17 say they use e-cigarettes.
California, Massachusetts, and Chicago, Illinois have also introduced similar bans. In addition, New York has a law raising the legal age to purchase tobacco and e-cigarettes from 18 to 21, which will hopefully help limit the number of teenagers who have access to the products. Other states are considering additional policy measures, such as raising taxes on e-cigarettes to discourage use, or public education campaigns to help convince the public about the dangers of vaping.
States and the federal government are taking action because of a recent announcement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that 380 lung disease cases and six deaths could be linked to vaping.
Dig Deeper In 2009, the federal government banned flavored cigarettes. What was the outcome? Based on that, do you think that banning flavored e-cigarettes will have an effect on the number of teenagers who vape? Explain.
Terrorist Attack in Saudi Arabia Prompts Talks of War
On September 14, the Abqaiq oil production facility in Saudi Arabia was attacked by several drones or missiles, causing serious damage and stopping the production of millions of barrels of oil per day. Houthi rebels (an Iranian-backed terrorist organization in Yemen) claimed that they were the ones responsible for the attack. But experts agree that the sophistication of the attack – as well as the equipment needed to carry it out – would have been impossible for Houthi rebels to carry out without assistance from the Iranian government.
When the attacks occurred, Iran immediately denied involvement. But U.S. surveillance satellites show images of Iran preparing drones and missiles in the hours before the facility was attacked. Though this isn’t proof of direct involvement, it certainly increases suspicion. The United States Department of Defense has sent a forensic team to Saudi Arabia to evaluate the damage. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will be visiting there as well.
So what will happen next? Trump has indicated that the U.S. is ready and willing to strike back at whoever is responsible for the attack on the facility, but will wait to hear from Saudi Arabia leadership before doing anything. Before the attack, there had been tentative hopes of an upcoming meeting between the United States and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, but Rouhani has now refused, saying that he won’t participate in any talks until the U.S. dials back the nuclear deal it has imposed on Iran.
Dig Deeper Why would Houthi rebels want to claim responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia? Use Internet resources to help you figure out your answer.
White House Rolls Back Environmental Standards
California has always led the United States in its attention to issues surrounding the environment and climate change. In fact, ever since the 1970 Clean Air Act, California has had the ability to write its own, stricter laws about standards for air quality and vehicle emissions. But now, if the White House has its way, all of that is about to come to an end.
Here’s why: for decades, California has been in talks with four major automakers with the goal of producing cars averaging 50 miles per gallon by the year 2026. Earlier this month, however, the Trump administration launched an investigation into the deal, which it says may break antitrust laws about what constitutes fair and unfair business practices. Meanwhile, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a plan to keep a goal of 37 miles per gallon from now until 2026. This plan would apply to all states, including California. The White House argues that this way, automakers won’t have to deal with two different sets of standards: one at the state level, one at the federal level.
But California – as well as the 12 other states that have signed on to the California standards – is outraged about the change. Many environmental experts are concerned about what it will mean for pollution, air quality, and climate change to roll back these standards. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has already promised that he will fight the White House’s plan in court.