Over the past seven years, the world has watched in horror as the atrocities of the Syrian Civil War unraveled. Footage of chemical attacks, bombings, demolished cities, and thousands of dead smothered the media outlets. Countless Syrian refugees pleaded with the world, asking for any aid and assistance we could potentially provide. Some countries, such as Lebanon and Jordan, opened their doors to the refugees, despite their limited financial resources. The United States, however, with the largest economy in the world and arguably the most financial potential to house and assist Syrian refugees, has done comparably little to help. From the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 to the end of 2016, the United States accepted a little over 18,000 refugees into its border. For comparison, Germany, a country smaller in size and economy, has accepted 40,000 refugees in less than half that time.

As of March 22, 2018, there are over 5.6 million Syrian refugees in crisis, the majority of which are living in hazardous conditions well below the poverty line. The stories of these people no longer make front-page news, but that does not eradicate their existence nor their struggles. This year, less than a quarter of the proposed refugee quota – which is the “lowest proposed ceiling in the program’s 43-year history”– has been admitted into the United States. While the world is in crisis, the country is more reluctant than ever to step forward and help. To ignore the pleas for help from nearly six million people in need would not only be morally wrong, but would have large-scale, global consequences.

Recent actions from the United States government have helped to encourage the idea that the Syrian refugees are a dangerous threat to the country’s security. When President Trump issued Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as the travel ban, in early 2017, he stated that “it was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that the people come in who aren’t going to do us harm.”

As was evidenced in Donald Trump’s speech, such a reluctance to assist the Syrian refugees is based in the fear and mistrust of the Middle East. U.S. relations with the region have been on the rocks ever since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The current threat of ISIS has only increased doubt and trepidation. However, statistically speaking, this fear is completely unfounded in the United States, as several studies have shown. According to a 2016 study by the Cato Institute, “the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.” Not a single refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been involved in a U.S. terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up an extremely difficult refugee screening process, which can take upwards of two years.

Last week, I spoke on the phone with Jwana Smith, the community relations officer of the Philadelphia district office for the Department of Homeland Security. We discussed the screening process for refugees, and I asked her whether she thought there were a significant chance of someone being linked to terrorism making it through the screening process. She informed me that the screening process has tightened significantly since 9/11, and even more so in the last year or two under the United States’ current administration. The United States has substantially decreased the number of refugees they are willing to admit per year, granting each department more time to focus in depth on a particular applicant. In short, throughout the program’s forty-year history, not one refugee has been connected to terrorism after passing the U.S. screening process, and she believes the process is more secure now than ever.

On a global scale, there are concerns in parts of the world, such as Germany, where terrorist threats have, in fact, been linked to Syrian refugees. In October 2016, a Syrian refugee was arrested and over three pounds of explosives were found in his residence. While this may be a concerning fact to Americans, the fact of the matter is that the United States has a much more efficient and effective refugee screening process. The terrorist in question, Jaber al-Bakr, had direct ties to the Islamic State. Just one of the several background checks performed throughout the U.S. screening process would have detected that.

Bakr’s presence in Germany was, according to security officials, due to the fact that Germany has not kept sufficient records of the influx of asylum seekers into the country. In 2015, nearly one million asylum seekers entered Germany without background screening, allowing for those with ties to the Islamic State to easily infiltrate the country. With complex background checks, interviews, fingerprinting, and upwards of two years’ worth of research, the United States does not share this problem.

The United States has one of the most thorough, successful refugee screening processes in the world. While terrorist attacks in neighboring countries may be frightening, Americans must remember that the circumstances of those countries are simply not comparable to those of the United States. The answer to the refugee crisis is not a travel ban. Our system is working, and has been working with a one-hundred-percent success rate for over forty years. We have put every possible barrier in place to blockade dangerous people from entering our country, and we must have faith that our system works. Jwana Smith made a remarkably good point during our discussion: If top security officials trust the refugee screening process enough to continue the program, then the general public should, as well.

Outside of the fact that our fear of refugees is unfounded, it also has the potential to be extremely detrimental for global relations. The Trump administration “has admitted less than a quarter of the 45,000 refugees it set as a cap – already the lowest ceiling in the program’s 43-year history.” Many critics of this dramatic decrease argue that rather than increase U.S. security, we could in fact be threatening the country’s security in the long-run by not accepting refugees.

The less refugees we accept into our country, the more our allies in the Middle East, including Jordan and Turkey, have to relocate and care for. With already strained financial and physical resources, the majority of the 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, the 1 million in Lebanon, and the 700,000 in Jordan, live below the poverty line. According to a UNICEF assessment from February 2018, 85% of Syrian refugees live in poverty, where 94% are considered to be “multi-dimensionally poor.” History has shown that poor, impoverished communities with extremely strained resources are perfect breeding grounds for instability and warfare. In fact, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the crises that led to the destabilization of the Middle East in the first place are linked to poverty, lack of resources, and failed economic development.

If we do not do our part to assist the refugees, not onlywill we most likely destabilize the Middle East further, but we will also anger and isolate our few allies left in the region. Eleanor Acer, the director of a nonprofit advocating for human rights in U.S. foreign policy, said in a statement that “the U.S. abdication of leadership on resettlement doesn’t put America first, it actually sabotages America’s interests globally.”

A common misconception is that while we would be positively impacted globally, there would be a negative economic impact in America after accepting large amounts of refugees. According to economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a senior UN advisor, this is simply not true. “For the U.S., on net, it’s positive, because there are gains when people come, add to the labor market, add skill and generally, earn less than what they can contribute to the society as a whole.” Many of the refugees coming now are well-educated and better off than the average person in their country. They also tend to be younger. Due to this, the Syrian refugees can bring important skills into the U.S. workforce while also not receiving as many social services as they would if they were older.

The combined effects of this allow for the U.S. economy to actually experience a positive impact due to the incoming refugees. Such has been the case in Utica, New York, which is known as “the town that loves refugees.” For Utica, welcoming in refugees actually was able to turn around their economic decline. They have started small businesses, renovated and revitalized houses and buildings, helped encourage growth for its universities, and have integrated themselves into the functioning of the city. Utica is a paramount example of the good that the refugees can bring to the United States. We have the space, we have the resources, and we have the opportunities for growth – all of which the countries currently accepting refugees lack. We are forcing weaker countries to carry a heavy burden – one that we could not only handle, but would actually benefit us. What is our excuse?

This heavy burden on countries like Turkey and Jordan leads to additional strains on the refugees themselves. The majority of Syrian refugees live in poverty, with very little access to employment opportunities. In Lebanon, for example, over one million Syrian refugees are restricted from numerous forms of employment, yet are still required to pay a yearly fee in order to legally stay in the country. As a result, more and more refugees are forced to live in hiding in order to survive. Conditions have made the situation desperate, with an estimated sixty to seventy percent of children being forced into labor. Parents have sold their daughters into child marriages, and some Syrian women have become sex slaves as a form of payment to people smugglers.

Beyond anything else, these catastrophic circumstances have been caused by overwhelmed countries who simply do not have the resources to support the millions of refugees flocking to their borders. By refusing to offer support and asylum, the United States is making a horrific situation even worse. The region is rapidly destabilizing, and millions of people are suffering as a result.

As these countries slow and even block their acceptance of refugees, many have turned to desperate measures in order to escape Syria. Doaa al Zamel, a sixteen-year-old girl, was one of the tens of thousands who had a smuggler take her by boat out of Syria. She left with her fiancée, and was crammed onto a fishing boat with 500 other people. Their ship was sunk by another ship, and people instantly began drowning. As the days went on, two people handed Doaa al Zamel their infant children in hopes that she would survive and care for them. Her fiancée lost strength and eventually drowned, along with most of the other passengers. Fortunately, she became one of the few survivors when a tanker ship discovered them.

Boats have capsized, refugees have died of starvation or hypothermia, and very little can be done to help. Many refugees have no other route to go but illegally by sea. Stefano Argenziano is the operations manager of Médecins Sans Frontières, whose staff works on rescue ships for refugees. When asked about his work, he stated that “search and rescue is not the problem, but it is not the solution either. It is a necessity to save lives unless politicians can produce a safe and legal alternative.” The safe and legal alternative comes with countries, including the United States, making a secure and efficient screening process that allows the refugees to get to safety. There truly is no excuse not to help when millions of lives are at stake.

The United States has put itself up on a pedestal of morality for its entire existence, claiming to uphold the ideals of liberty and justice for all. How, then, can we choose to step away from a global crisis and watch as the rest of the world scrambles to find a solution? Above all else – above global relations and economics – the Syrian Refugee Crisis is a moral issue. The Statue of Liberty, a physical symbol of everything our country stands for, reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” The statue has been a beacon of hope to so many immigrants on their way to the United States, searching for a better life. How can we deny the Syrian refugees, who have already lost everything and endured so much suffering, that same chance?

We cannot let the words of the Statue of Liberty become an empty promise. The nations of the world must put aside their fears and create an international plan to help the refugees. No one country can do it alone. The United States must do its part and open its doors to the refugees.  If we work together to supply aid, assistance, and housing, we could save millions of lives.

Over the years, so many nations have claimed that “never again” would something resembling the Holocaust occur. However, such complete ostracization of the refugees by the world reminds me of a visit to a Holocaust Museum, where I learned about how many Jews were turned away from refuge, and later perished. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every nation wishes to be morally good, to always do what is right. If we do not put our fear and ambivalence aside, the values that we claim to stand for will be nothing but words. Our world is faced with the largest refugee and displacement crisis since World War II. People are asking desperately for our help. The question is not whether we should do something or not. The question is why haven’t we done something already.

For my persuasive essay, I will be focusing on the topic of Syrian refugees entering the United States. To me, this is an extremely important issue, affecting the lives of millions of people, and as of late, it has fallen off the front pages of newspapers and media, to a sort of journalism graveyard where all forgotten stories go when their relevance fades away. The fact of the matter, however, is that there is still a massive crisis going on, and I believe that the fight for Syrian refugees to be granted access into the country is as relevant as ever.

My primary audience is Americans – or, more specifically, Americans who are of voting age and can therefore help to enact change by supporting candidates who would welcome Syrian refugees into the United States. The concerns of this audience is that it is vast and ranges extensively in their thinking. Many voters would rather see Syrian refugees as far away from the United States as humanly possible, due to fear of terrorism or xenophobia or both. I will address these concerns at the beginning of my essay by pointing out the fact that there have been no US terrorism acts committed by a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, in about forty years. I will address the United States screening process for refugees, and explain that it is the most secure, extensive process and IF a refugee has any potential ties to terrorism, the USA will almost undoubtedly uncover it. In this way, we are not comparable to other European countries with open borders, since we will know exactly who is going through our country via fingerprinting, background checks, interviews, waiting processes, etc.

With these statistics and logical rationale, I will also include some personal stories of Syrian refugees, tying in an emotional support to my argument in order to humanize them more. A lot of fear directed towards the refugees is fear of the unknown, so hopefully sharing their stories will help convince the American populace that they pose no threat to the United States – as safety is a main concern for many of those who are hesitant to grant them access. I will then relate back to American values of being the world’s supposed leader in freedom and democracy, of our history of being a haven for refugees from across the globe, and how we have always tried to uphold the ideal of having opened arms to those who need our help. The Statue of Liberty itself reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Helping the Syrian refugees is aligned with our values as Americans.

In my support I will use statistical evidence to support my claim that the Syrian refugees provide no threat to the United States, and I will try to include statements from officials involved in the screening process for refugees. I have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for their statement about the screening process for refugees, but in case they don’t respond, there’s a lot of articles on the subject elsewhere.

I think that the biggest challenge of my project involves convincing people to get over such an extreme fear. Ever since 9/11, Americans have been absolutely terrified of the Middle East, and everyone who comes from that region. Now, with the threat of ISIS still looming over the world, that distrust is further heightened. Fear often beats out facts, so convincing people to shift such a deeply-rooted belief will be difficult. Furthermore, one of my main arguing points is one of morality, which is a grey area and not the same idea for everyone. I will try to acknowledge this as best I can, but I am still a little shaky on how to best address the counterargument presented since it is such an emotional one.

At the conclusion of my essay, I would like to include one last call to action to not forget about the refugees, to reach out to our government and express your support, and, overall, to put aside fear of the unknown in order to help others who desperately need it.

“[ISIS] has made it very clear that they will smuggle in operatives with refugees coming into our [borders].”

An article, entitled “Why We Shouldn’t Allow Syrian Refugees Into Our Borders“, was written from the perspective of an Iraqi Christian living in the United States. It is an opinion piece published by The Odyssey Online, and is vehemently against the United States allowing refugees from Syria to come into the country.

The author’s main argument is that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) will be trying to infiltrate the United States by disguising them as Syrian refugees. The author, Brittany Abbo, says that this is not an issue of prejudice – it is an issue of security. By allowing Syrian refugees, there are very good chances that we are also letting in terrorists through our borders, according to Abbo.

First of all, the author has very clear bias in the matter – she even addresses it during the article. As an Iraqi Christian herself, she has watched her Iraqi community be nearly exterminated due to the destruction caused by ISIS. This personal link to the issue makes the threat of ISIS much more pertinent to her, and also much more terrifying. This being the case, she is automatically more likely to hype up even a small (or nonexistent) chance to be an extremely immediate danger.

Taking out emotion and bias, however, the statistics and history of immigration relations do not lie: According to the Cato Institute, “no person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States.” This is especially noteworthy, since the United States has taken in a very large number of refugees from the Middle East and surrounding areas in recent years. In 2016 alone, nearly 39,000 Muslim refugees entered the United States legally. Again, not ONE of them has been involved in any act of terror. We can speculate and see ghosts everywhere we go, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in our country have been performed by native white males – not Muslims, and not refugees.

As for Brittany Abbo’s concern for safety, she is obviously not familiar with the aforementioned screening procedure for refugees that was set in place by the Refugee Act of 1980. The basic structure of the screening process (though still widely incomplete; there are many more steps that I simply felt would take too long to include, as well as would be redundant to repeat) is the following, according to the White House:

1. Many refugee applicants identify themselves to the U.N. Refugee Agency
2. Applicants are received by a federally-funded Resettlement Support Center
3. Biographic security checks start with enhanced interagency security checks. Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any traveller. They are screened by the National Counterterrorism Center/Intelligence Community, FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security, and State Department.
4. Department of Homeland Security interview
5. Biometric security checks
6. Medical check
7. Cultural orientation and assignment to domestic resettlement locations
8. Travel
9. US Arrival

Anyone involved in the screening process will tell you that this evaluation is thorough, taking upwards of several years to complete, and ruthless. If there is even a shred of evidence linking a refugee to suspicious activity, they will be denied entry almost automatically. To insist that there is any real threat from Syrian refugees is lacking in evidence and, frankly, quite heartless. To insist that we cannot help anyone because of some make-believe threat is incredibly ludicrous. Especially since we seem to justify the legality of assault rifles after predominantly white males cause shooting after shooting. It’s almost as if white people are held to different standards than Middle Eastern people.

Question of Value: It is wrong for the United States of America to ban Syrian refugees from entering the country.

Over the past eight years, the civil war in Syria has raged on, resulting in chemical attacks, systematic rape, among other methods of torture. And now: 13.5 million Syrian refugees, whose lives have been destroyed in the midst of war, facing the abominable reality that nobody will take them. As time has gone on, media coverage and societal interest in the plight of Syrian refugees has dwindled dramatically. However, the fact of the matter is that there are still millions of refugees out there in the world, living in makeshift tents and surviving off feeble resources. The world has forgotten about them.

The Syrian Crisis has always been particularly important to me, as it was the first issue that I have watched develop from the very beginning where I could truly understand the atrocities that were being afflicted on millions of people. The civil war broke out in 2011, shortly before I turned twelve years old. I have followed the entire development of the conflict – I have seen the photos of injured and dead children, I have read stories of the families who lost everything, I watched videos of the tearful pleas of refugees to come to the United States. I felt absolutely useless. What motivates me, above all, to discuss this issue now is to spread awareness, if that is all I can do.

One of the main misconceptions that assists in preventing Syrian refugees from immigrating to the United States is the idea that the refugees may be terrorists – that they may seek entry to other countries only to destroy them. However, according to a 2016 study by the Cato Institute, “the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year.” Not a single refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been involved in a US terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up an extremely difficult refugee screening process, which can take upwards of two years. Evidently, the idea that Syrian refugees pose a threat to us has been largely disproven. There is ultimately a racial bias towards the people of Syria due to the country’s location. The Middle East has for many years now been perceived to be a sort of unstable, evil place that breeds terrorists, which makes a large percentage of the American populace reluctant to grant anyone from that region access to the United States. This is evidenced by President Trump’s “Travel Ban”, which banned travel in early 2017 from predominantly-Muslim countries, including: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Main Research Questions:

1. Is there an actual threat from Syrian refugees, or is the reluctance to grant them entry more a reflection of xenophobia in America?
2. What is the current status of Syrian refugees, as well as that of those currently remaining in Syria?
3. What actions have been taken, as of now, by the United States to assist the Syrian refugees?
4. What is the attitude of different communities in the United States towards Syrian refugees?

Works Cited:

United States, Congress, The Refugee Act. 1980.

Epps, Garrett. “The Supreme Court’s Travel Ban Dilemma.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 28 Jan. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/travel-ban-supreme-court/551669/.

Rodgers, Lucy, et al. “Syria: The story of the conflict.” BBC News, BBC, 11 Mar. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868.

On Thursday, February 22, I attended the deliberation: “Seeking Sanctuary: Should State College Be a Sanctuary City?”. The deliberation was held in Webster’s Cafe, which at first I thought would be great because of the nice atmosphere. However, what I came to learn as the deliberation progressed is that the acoustics aren’t great to begin with, and everyone speaks more quietly than under normal circumstances due to the fact that we are in a coffee shop/bookstore. As a result, I had to strain to hear a significant chunk of the conversation, since I sat a little distance away from the main group.

As for the deliberation itself, it covered a very interesting and thought-provoking topic. Most people who attended were fellow RCL students, but there were also State College council members who simply came to learn more about public opinion on the issue. The audience participated fairly well, and I especially learned some insightful bits of information from the council members. For example, I did not know that State College already acted somewhat like a sanctuary city (i.e. when someone commits a crime, their citizenship is never a factor in the equation), but has so far avoided labeling the town as such. The reasoning behind this is there is the possibility of losing federal funding and assistance if we outright refuse to offer full cooperation to them. I suppose I had never really considered the politics behind something so seemingly insignificant as a name, and it made for an interesting discussion.

One facet that struck me as odd regarding how the deliberation was run would be the actual organization. I know that I was told to have my options be actual positions and courses of action. For example, if I had been running this deliberation, I would perhaps make one option “Label State College a sanctuary city” and another “Crack down on undocumented immigrants in State College.” The “options” of this deliberation merely covered vague topics pertaining to the subject, such as safety, fairness, and community. For the fairness option, they discussed why it was fair for State College to be a sanctuary city, and then why it was not fair. Therefore, there were no actual options and courses of action that we could select. I don’t know if this is simply how students were told to deliver their deliberations in other classes, but I was definitely a bit confused.

One other thing that bothered me (although, of course, the deliberation hosts could have no possible way to control this) was the lack of differing opinion. For the most part, everyone who attended the deliberation was either a student or involved with Penn State, and more liberal-leaning. I would’ve liked to see more community members with no ties to Penn State, who perhaps would have more conservative – or even just different – views on the subject. I felt that for most of the discussion, we were all just saying the same thing in many different ways and agreeing with each other. I would’ve liked to hear where someone on the opposite side of the issue was coming from.

For my group’s deliberation, we will be focusing on Greek Life at Penn State University – more particularly, whether Greek Life should continue to exist at Penn State or not and if so, under what conditions. The first article I read pertaining to this subject is an editorial piece from Penn Live, a local news source in Central Pennsylvania. The article, entitled “It’s time for Penn State to put an end to Greek Life on campus”, obviously has a clear bias regarding which side of the argument it is leaning toward.

Link: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/11/its_time_for_penn_state_to_put.html

In the article, the Editorial Board of Penn Live released its vehement anti-Greek Life shortly following the revelations of the now infamous Timothy Piazza case, where FBI agents recovered deleted footage from the night Piazza died. Following that event was Lehigh University’s decision to dissolve a fraternity chapter, Sigma Chi, after two students ended up in the hospital after drinking at a frat event. Penn Live makes the case that while Greek Life does some good, it is significantly overwhelmed by an ever-increasing pile of bad that taints its overall reputation. This is easily related back to the pro-Greek Life argument which states that Greek Life is heavily involved in THON. Penn Live provides support for this argument by providing evidence that “fraternity men are three times more likely to commit sexual assault than other college men,” and often drink excessively. They also address possible solutions – and why they don’t work. According to the article, “college administrators and prevention professionals have tried developing” alcohol education programs for fraternities and sororities, but research has shown that these programs are unsuccessful, as are measures put in place to reduce alcoholic consumption by the university itself (relating to what President Barron did last year). The article also addresses the argument that banning Greek Life will just move them underground and make them more difficult to regulate by stating that keeping them on campus is providing them with a “legitimacy that they no longer deserve.”

The main issue here is that they are obviously so biased and fail to truly acknowledge any of the good Greek Life does for more than a mere second, and seem absolutely ruthless in their condemnation of Greek Life.

The second article I read on my deliberation topic is from Elite Daily, and addresses the positive aspects about Greek Life that are often left out of the anti-Greek Life articles.

Link: https://www.elitedaily.com/life/culture/10-great-things-greek-life-wont-hear-news/994221

These positive aspects include:

• Greek Life members often have some of the highest GPAs on their campuses.
• Greek Life donates millions of dollars annually to philanthropies.
• According to USA Today, 85% of Fortune 500 executives were actively involved in Greek Life.

The article also focuses on the more emotional positives of Greek Life, including the benefits of having a support system and close group of friends you can depend on. While the article does present some statistical data, its lack of evidential support for several of its points weakens the overall strength of the article. The article was also written by someone who states at the very beginning that she was a member in a sorority, which instantly means she has a bias in support of Greek Life. However, there are some points supported with evidence that are worth acknowledging and addressing in the Greek Life debate.

Article from The Scientific American: “How Does Meat in the Diet Take an Environmental Toll?”: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/

This article featured above is from The Scientific American, an American popular science magazine. Throughout the article, the magazine answers a question from a reader: “I heard that the less meat one eats, the better it is for the environment. How so?” The Scientific American answers this question by explaining that the meat industry itself is a main culprit in the world’s current state of climate change and global warming. What makes the meat industry so dangerous for the environment is its current practices, which take little to no account into their horrific consequences. These actions, according to the article, include:

• “According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the production, processing and distribution of meat requires huge outlays of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, feed and water while releasing greenhouse gases, manure and a range of toxic chemicals into our air and water.”
• “A[n] analysis conducted by EWG… found that red meat… is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.
• “EWG estimates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland.
• “The process generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while the output of methane—another potent greenhouse gas—from cattle is estimated to generate some 20 percent of overall U.S. methane emissions.”
• “A 2009 study found that four-fifths of the deforestation across the Amazon rainforest could be linked to cattle ranching.
• “The water pollution from factory farms … can produce as much sewage waste as a small city, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
• “The widespread use of antibiotics to keep livestock healthy on those overcrowded CAFOs has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten human health and the environment in their own right.”
  

These are only some of the points featured in the article (it’s a really interesting read, so if you have the time, I suggest checking it out to learn more about the practices of the meat industry). As someone who has strictly cut out all red meat from her diet for the past four years due to the very reasons listed above, I obviously agree with and support The Scientific American in their endeavor to educate the public on exactly just how harmful the meat industry really is. It is a looming threat over our planet that is often pushed to the side of mainstream debate regarding climate change, and usually forgotten about and ignored. For such a catastrophic problem – one that, according to the article, is linked to four-fifths of Amazon deforestation, has led to widespread antibiotic resistance, and is responsible for gargantuan releases of greenhouse gases – everyone in our society should know about it. However, as evidenced by the fact that this question from the reader had to be posed in the first place, not many people actually do.

Until everyone (or at least a vast majority) knows about the meat industry’s effect on our environment, and cares enough to do something about it, nothing will change. As unfortunate as this sounds, it’s simply the truth. According to statista.com, the revenue of United States meat, beef, and poultry processing reached upwards of 22 billion dollars in 2014. In the United States, we eat more meat per person than anywhere else in the world. The United States meat industry is very strong and very powerful, and I have little doubt that its monetary power results in influence in what laws and regulations are passed regarding environmental protection.

According to PBS, the meat industry “has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years.” Over the past several decades, the meat industry has used their monetary power to influence legislators and members of the USDA, in order to block laws and regulations. By doing so, the meat industry is maintaining their free reign to produce meat in the most efficient and least safe way possible.

One of the final points of the article from The Scientific American is that “ultimately, we need better policies and stronger regulations to reduce the environmental impacts of livestock production.” However, “personal shifting of diets is an important step.” Despite the incompetence of our current government to pass regulations in order to protect the health of humanity alongside our planet, we can all play our part to reduce the impact of the meat industry. Countless sources list the removal of red meat from our diets as one of the main ways we, as individuals, can combat climate change. Although the malpractice of the meat industry is the result of corporate greed more so than an individual’s desire to eat a good burger, we all should still do our part by not supporting such an enormous threat to our planet’s livelihood. We are all of us unknowingly complicit in our own destruction, because the meat industry wants to keep us in the dark. But knowledge is power, and we all have the right to understand just how dangerous a burger can be.

I believe in frogs.

They were the favorite animal of my little cousin, Payton. Payton was always an odd kid – wise beyond her meager four years. She was obsessed with chai tea, and would frequently insist that I make her a cup, since she was too short to reach the microwave. Her greatest dream was to drink tea with the Queen of England, who was probably the only person in the world who enjoyed a good cup of tea more than Payton did. And, perhaps more than anything else, Payton loved frogs.

I remember watching her as she would chase them across her backyard after a rainstorm. She’d scoop the frogs up in the palms of her tiny hands and tell them stories. She’d tell the frogs about the Queen of England she desperately wanted to meet, and about her two older sisters that she idolized so much. She’d smile at the frogs, and they would ribbit back. I think she believed they were talking to her.

Maybe they were.

Payton died of brain cancer shortly after her fifth birthday. The funeral was held in the early days of June, which brought with it a downpour of heavy rain. I remember, while splashing in the puddles outside after the service, I spotted an abundance of frogs all around me. They had taken over the parking lot. As friends and family debated over whether to drive home, in fear of running them over, I just sat on the sidewalk of the church and watched the frogs. I watched as they hopped and splashed in the puddles, just as I had been doing. I didn’t pay attention to anything else. Not the pouring rain, which was ruining my pretty black dress, or the noise of the people behind me, or the sadness that had been overwhelming me ever since the day Payton passed away. For what was the very first time in my life, although certainly not the last, frogs became a sign to me that everything was going to be okay.

I watch out for frogs now. I see them everywhere – on the banks of rivers, on my window at night. Once, on Payton’s birthday, I was riding the bus home from school. Suddenly, a shriek pierced the air, and the students around me went into an uproar. Through the chaos, I discovered that a frog had somehow hopped onto the bus. As the children behind me yelled and extracted their legs from the frog-infested ground, I only smiled.

Maybe it’s better to create stories out of nothing. To believe a frog is good luck, to think they are signs of the ones we’ve lost. Maybe God and Heaven are just fairytales we tell ourselves to feel better, but what’s so wrong with that? Sometimes it’s okay to create stories and fairytales. Sometimes that’s all we have to believe in. Sometimes it’s enough. As long as I believe I’ll be alright, I will be. Maybe it’s a story. But maybe it’s not. Maybe, by writing our own stories, we breathe life into them.

I believe – above all else – in the stories in our head, no matter how ridiculous they appear to be. I always will.

I believe in frogs.

They were the favorite animal of my little cousin Payton, who would chase them after a rainstorm had led them to scatter outside her backyard. She would talk to frogs and tell them stories, as if somehow, they could hear her. They would ribbit while she held them in the palm of her tiny hands, and she believed they were talking to back to her.

Maybe they were.

Payton died of brain cancer when she was five years old. The funeral was held in the early days of June, which brought with it a downpour of heavy rain. I remember, while splashing in the puddles outside after the service, I saw an abundance of frogs all around me. They had taken over the parking lot. As families and friends debated over whether to drive home, in fear of running them over, I just sat on the sidewalk of the church and watched the frogs. They hopped and splashed in the puddles, just as I had been doing. I didn’t pay attention to anything else. Not the pouring rain, which was ruining my pretty black dress, or the noise of the people behind me, or the sadness that had been overwhelming me ever since the day Payton passed away. For what was the very first time in my life, although certainly not the last, frogs became a sign to me that everything was going to be okay.

I watch out for frogs now. I see them everywhere – on the banks of rivers, on my window at night. Once, on Payton’s birthday, I was riding the bus home from school. Suddenly, a shriek pierced the air, and the students around me went into an uproar. Through the chaos, I discovered that a frog had somehow hopped onto the bus. As the children behind me yelled and extracted their legs from the frog-infested ground, I only smiled.

Maybe it’s better to create stories out of nothing. To believe a frog is good luck, to think they are signs of the ones we’ve lost. Maybe God and Heaven are just fairytales we tell ourselves to feel better, but what’s so wrong with that? Sometimes it’s okay to create stories and fairytales. Sometimes that’s all we have to believe in. Sometimes it’s enough. As long as I believe I’ll be alright, I will be. Maybe it’s a story. But maybe it’s not. Maybe, by writing our own stories, we breathe life into them.

I believe – above all else – in the stories in our head, no matter how ridiculous they appear to be. I always will.

I remember, in my sophomore English class, my teacher posed the question: “What is the greatest threat to the world today?” I thought long and hard on this question. It was at this point in time that ISIS was rising in prominence, and North Korea was frequently threatening to bomb the United States. Perhaps that was it, then. The greatest threat to the world was terrorism, or nuclear war. However, after long contemplation, I came to the conclusion that despite both of their dangers, neither would likely be the threat that destroyed the planet (although they certainly could be). I realized that there was a much more insidious threat lurking behind the headlines of ISIS and Kim Jong-un. Away from the front pages of newspapers and instead scribbled in side columns were stories of increasing global temperatures, freakish storms and natural disasters, rising sea levels, destroyed habitats, greenhouse gas emissions, among other warning signs that are consistently pushed to the side of mainstream media. And perhaps that’s why climate change is, in fact, the greatest threat to the world today: No one is paying attention to it.

By “no one”, I do not mean to imply that no one cares about climate change. Many people take the time to recycle, make sure to turn off their lights, invest in eco-friendly vehicles, etc. The truth of the matter, however, is that it is simply not enough for everyday citizens to take shorter showers, or ride their bikes to work. There is a lack of attention paid to the true culprits of the current destruction of our planet: Industry. Change needs to start at the highest levels, where major financial powers such as the meat industry and fashion industry pollute our waters, produce outrageously high levels of greenhouse gases,  destroy habitats and land, among other harmful practices. However, many people – even eco-conscious individuals – are unaware of who the major facilitators of climate change actually are. Through this blog, I want to point out the dangerous practices of some of the world’s largest industries, and encourage everyone to pay more attention to the real cost of the products they purchase.

My interest in climate change peaked when I moved from Pennsylvania to the Florida coast in 2010 – right before the BP Oil Spill occurred. Living less than thirty minutes away from the oil-polluted beaches, where seagulls frequently washed up coated in black goo, made me realize for the first time quite how large of an impact major industries have on our environment. Sure, I had heard plenty of people tell me to Reuse, Reduce, Recycle, but no individual person could have such a horrifying effect as an oil company had on the Gulf of Mexico and all of its inhabitants. I started paying attention to other spills occurring around the country and the world. I paid attention to factories that were releasing waste into the water streams where manatees lived, near my hometown. I discovered that the fashion industry in the second largest polluter in the world. All these discoveries made me realize that it is our duty as citizens to not only help the environment ourselves, but to also give our money to companies who make products with the Earth’s health in mind.