In 1860 fewer than one in five Americans lived in communities larger than 8,000 people. By 1920, more than half of all Americans lived in major industrial areas. What were the main problems that the new cities had?

sewage in the streets, overcrowded buildings, and crime

industrial centers, farming, homes

lack of horses, fewer street lamps, high buildings

Why do you think the cities specialized in producing certain types of products?

Because many cities grew up around a single industry

Because many cities were overcrowded and people needed one type of product

Because there were few railroad centers

What advantages did the new crowded cities have?

efficient waste collection, faster transportation, buildings, lights for streets

locomotives, cars, horses, small houses

city plans, single industries per city, smaller communities

Americans Move to Cities p. 90-91

If we look at the United States on a map today, it is very difficult to imagine that where we see borders, cities, and states, there once existed nothing but open land, uncharted mountain ranges, and miles of untouched wilderness. North America was a highly desired destination for exploration and settlement for Europeans. In the early 1500s, expeditions from Europe to North America were funded by Europe's kings and queens in hopes of expanding their territories across the world. The voyages were treacherous with unknown dangers and many attempts to settle in this new land were faced with failure. In the early 1600’s however, the settlers of Jamestown and Plymouth survived the harsh conditions and established the first two permanent English settlements in North America. Jamestown Colony in Virginia Jamestown was founded in 1607. Of course, its colonists did not know it would go on to become the the first permanent English settlement in the Americas. The settlement was located along the James River off Chesapeake Bay in modern-day Virginia. Life in Jamestown was very hard, and nearly 80% of the first settlers died in the first year due to disease and starvation. The region was warm and had fertile soil, making it a perfect place for growing crops, specifically tobacco. Sponsored by a joint stock company known as the Virginia Company of London, Jamestown was originally established as a profit-making enterprise. The first settlers looked for gold and other natural resources that could bring a profit to the company's investors. After several very difficult years, the colonists were eventually able to grow tobacco that was popular in England and it became a valuable cash crop. Jamestown's colonists were primarily all supporters of the Church of England and felt a strong connection to their homeland. Many, like John Smith, returned to England, or would move back and forth between the two locations. Being that Jamestown was founded by a corporation looking to make a profit, it began using enslaved labor in 1619. Indentured servants and enslaved Africans made up much of the workforce on the growing tobacco and cotton plantations. The system of using enslaved Africans for the profit of American plantations has been described as America's "original sin". About 400 miles to the north of Jamestown, a group of Pilgrims seeking religious freedom established Plymouth in 1620 as the second English colony in North America. Located in modern day Massachusetts, the colder climate and rocky soil made farming and agriculture more difficult. Instead of growing cash crops, settlers turned to lumber, shipbuilding, and fishing for trade. Unlike the settlers of Jamestown, the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were dissenters from the Church of England. They came to the New World so that they could freely practice their religion without fear of persecution. Although their reasons for settling were different, the settlements had many similar experiences. Jamestown and Plymouth both faced harsh and demanding climates and struggled with hunger, disease, and death. In their first years they had much difficulty establishing housing and finding a sustainable source of food. Plymouth Colony in New England While the settlers in Jamestown used the House of Burgesses as a legislative body for laws and decisions, the Pilgrims in Plymouth wrote and agreed to the Mayflower Compact as a set of rules for self-government. Both helped maintain the rule of law in new places far from the courts and tradition of England. Settlers of both colonies experienced complicated and, at times, violent relationships with local Native Americans that owned the land. While some American Indian groups offered help to the new settlers, oftentimes both sides needed to defend themselves from attacks. Nevertheless, the settlers of Jamestown and Plymouth persevered through these difficulties and maintained their establishments, providing inspiration for future colonies and settlers in search of a new life in the New World.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Make a multiple choice quiz for my year 8 science students based on the science in this transcript from a video: 3°C 0:04 It can be the difference between snow and sleet 0:08 Wearing a jacket or not 0:11 In your day-to-day life, it may not seem significant 0:15 But 3°C of global warming would be catastrophic 0:20 Heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation, even fire 0:25 3°C of warming is really disastrous 0:28 The scary thing is, the world is well on its way there 0:32 Since the industrial revolution, the Earth has warmed between 1.1°C and 1.3°C 0:40 This is a problem that babies you pass in the street will have to live with 0:46 Children born today... 0:47 ...are up to seven times more likely to face extreme weather than their grandparents 0:52 If global temperatures do rise by 3°C... 0:55 ...what would their world look like? Climate change is already having devastating effects 1:03 Rising sea levels 1:05 Desertification 1:07 Hollywood has always enjoyed imagining the end of the world 1:11 While blockbusters like this are clearly fiction... 1:14 ...this film will show the scenario we all face... 1:17 ...unless more drastic measures are taken to stop burning fossil fuels 1:30 In some parts of the world the effects of inaction are already clear 1:35 The slums of Bangladesh’s capital are filling up with climate migrants 1:41 Minara comes from Bhola District, an area in southern Bangladesh 1:46 There, like many other parts of the country... 1:49 ...rivers swollen by heavier rain and melting Himalayan glaciers... 1:53 ...are washing away people’s homes 1:56 Many, like her, have lost everything 2:00 Our home in Bhola had endless amounts of land 2:03 There was lots of space for farming, we had a spacious house 2:08 There were different types of fruits, vegetation and trees growing at home 2:12 We used to eat the fruit from our own trees 2:18 I can’t eat them now because they don't exist anymore 2:21 Since the river flooded for the third time, I had to flee to Dhaka 2:26 Life was much better back home 2:29 It was unbearable to live through, truly intolerable 2:33 We didn’t have the time to save anything at all 2:38 1.1°C to 1.3°C of global warming has already transformed Minara’s life 2:45 It’s one of the reasons why so many migrants like her... 2:47 ...are moving to the city each year... 2:50 ...nearly 400,000 according to the last estimate 2:53 And climate models show there could be much worse to come How climate modelling works 3:02 Climate scientist Joeri Rogelj... 3:04 ...has spent the last ten years modelling future climate scenarios... 3:08 ...for the United Nations 3:10 The models we use to carry out this exercise... 3:13 ...really represent the state of the art... 3:15 ...of our current knowledge of climate change and where we are heading 3:19 Joeri’s projections use data collected by hundreds of scientists around the world 3:26 Here this is the 3°C level... 3:28 ...and so there is at least a one-in-four chance that under current policies... 3:32 ...we would hit 3°C by the end of the century 3:36 This is just one of the scenarios Joeri looks at 3:40 Another one imagines that all policy promises are kept 3:44 The most optimistic assumes that all promises have been kept... 3:47 ...and net-zero targets are met 3:50 Where our best estimate ends up around 2°C at the end of the century... 3:54 ...there is still a one-in-20 chance that we end up with 3°C instead 3:59 One would not be entering a plane if there is a one-in-20 chance... 4:03 ...that the plane will crash Nowhere is safe from global warming 4:07 A rise of 3°C would affect everyone 4:10 Even wealthy cities in rich countries wouldn’t be immune to the consequences 4:15 European capitals like Paris and Berlin... 4:18 ...would bake under more extreme heatwaves 4:22 Frequent storm-surges in New York could turn parts of the city desolate 4:27 In many ways, cities magnify, intensify climate events 4:33 Cities are hotter than the places around them... 4:36 ...they tend to be more vulnerable to flooding 4:39 And you can get a really bad event in a city in a way that you can’t in the countryside 4:46 And because of their denser populations... 4:49 ...disasters in a city affect far more people 4:52 Some cities might be badly prepared for the changes coming 4:56 But they have the means to adapt 4:59 Cities tend to be wealthier than surrounding places 5:03 They have a lot of amenities 5:05 A city that has taken seriously the risks of a 3°C world... 5:08 …wouldn’t necessarily be a worse place to be in a 3°C world 5:12 But a city that hasn’t prepared for these sort of eventualities... 5:16 ...that might be a really nasty place The impact of prolonged droughts 5:20 So far, many developed cities have got off lightly... 5:24 ...but some rural parts of the world are suffering disproportionately 5:29 Smallholders—small-scale farmers—are particularly vulnerable to climate change 5:35 And there are over 600 million around the world 5:38 Smallholders with farms under two hectares... 5:40 ...produce around a third of the global food supply 5:46 Central America’s “Dry Corridor”... 5:48 ...supports a mix of smallholdings and medium-sized farms 5:53 Sandwiched between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea... 5:56 ...the area is prone to droughts 6:08 Israel Ramírez Rivera is a smallholder in Guatemala 6:12 Here, climate change is making the dry seasons longer, and more severe 6:18 This is the biggest ear of maize that this plot could deliver 6:23 He depends on his crops of corn and beans 6:26 But they’re getting harder to grow 6:30 The surrounding mountains... 6:32 ...used to provide us with native food... 6:38 ...and now that isn’t an option anymore... 6:41 ...due to climate change and its effects 6:46 Nearly two-thirds of the smallholders in the Dry Corridor now live in poverty 6:52 The impact of all of this for us... 6:59 ...malnutrition among children 7:03 We’ve lost a few 7:07 For my crops especially, the midsummer heat is harder than before 7:16 The plant dries up and can’t provide us... 7:19 ...with the necessary food provision 7:24 Severe droughts in Central America... 7:26 ...are now four times more likely than they were last century 7:30 Many families from here have gone to the States 7:37 The economic despair and debts... 7:44 ...have pushed many people from this community to do this journey 7:53 Migration from Guatemala to the United States has quadrupled since 1990 7:59 Not all of this has been due to climate change 8:02 But longer droughts would force even more to move 8:05 In a 3°C world, annual rainfall in this region... 8:09 ...could drop by up to 14% 8:12 At 3°C, over a quarter of the world’s population... 8:16 ...could endure extreme droughts for at least a month of the year 8:19 Northern Africa could see droughts that last for years at a time Rising sea levels, storm surges and flooding 8:24 But for some, too much water will be the problem 8:29 10% of the world’s population lives on a coastline... 8:32 ...that’s less than 10 metres above sea level 8:35 For these coastal inhabitants, a 3°C world would spell disaster 8:40 By 2100, global sea levels could have climbed by half a metre from 2005 levels 8:46 Low-lying cities like Lagos would be especially vulnerable... 8:49 ...with up to up to a third of the population displaced 8:54 And in Fiji, rising waters are already upending lives 9:04 You can see the graveyard there, it’s all under water now... 9:08 ...due to this rising sea level and climate change 9:15 The village of Togoru in Fiji is being swallowed by the sea 9:19 Barney Dunn, the village headman, has seen over half the village disappear 9:24 Relatives’ houses have been abandoned, and family graves are now under water 9:29 We have been asked by the government to relocate... 9:32 ...but no one wants to relocate... 9:34 ...because we have our great-great-grandparents down there in the sea 9:39 This is the place we’ve been brought up in 9:41 ...it’s not easy to leave 9:44 Past attempts to build a seawall haven’t worked 9:48 But Barney sees building a new one as the village’s only hope 9:52 If they do that, maybe we can save whatever is left 9:56 But if we don’t have the seawall, then it will be keep eroding and time will come... 10:01 ...maybe in ten,15 years, Togoru will be all eroded 10:05 Rising seas also mean storms cause more floods 10:11 And many more countries could suffer 10:14 The Philippines and Myanmar are just two countries... 10:17 ...that will also see an increase in storm surges in a 3°C world 10:21 To escape, many will move… 10:24 …often, to urban areas Extreme heat and wet-bulb temperatures 10:27 Half the world’s population already lives in cities... 10:31 ...almost a third in slums 10:36 For them, a 3°C world could be deadly 10:40 Minara has moved to Dhaka to escape the impact of climate change 10:44 But life could get even worse for her 10:47 I’m struggling a lot nowadays 10:49 The heat during the day is unbearable 10:52 Even late at night it doesn’t cool down 10:57 The heat is getting more intense every day 10:59 I mean, it’s going to get much worse 11:03 I can barely survive it now, how will I live through it in the future? 11:08 Dhaka is getting hotter 11:11 In the last 20 years the average daytime temperature... 11:13 ...has crept up by nearly half a degree 11:17 Days that approach 40°C are now being reported 11:20 And high so-called wet-bulb temperatures are on the rise 11:26 A wet-bulb temperature is a measure of heat and humidity 11:30 Humans cool themselves by sweating… 11:32 But in these conditions, when relative humidity is near 100%... 11:36 ...sweat doesn’t evaporate well 11:38 So people can’t cool down… 11:41 ...even if given unlimited shade and water 11:45 At a high wet-bulb temperature, the body can’t lose heat... 11:49 ...and so it gets hotter and hotter... 11:51 ...and the body is designed to work at a given temperature 11:53 And if it gets too hot inside, you will die 11:58 The human limit for wet-bulb temperatures is 35°C... 12:02 ...around skin temperature 12:04 Dhaka will have a much higher chance... 12:05 ...of reaching dangerous wet-bulb temperatures... 12:07 ...if global warming reaches 3°C 12:12 You can’t really adapt to that 12:14 You have to get out. If the temperature is so high that you can’t work... 12:20 ...can’t do hard manual labour outside for significant parts of the year... 12:25 ...then many places will become functionally no longer part of the economy 12:33 Jacobabad in Pakistan, and Ras al Khaimah, in the United Arab Emirates... 12:37 ...have already recorded deadly wet-bulb temperatures 12:40 More of the tropics and the Persian Gulf... 12:43 ...as well as parts of Mexico and the south-eastern United States... 12:47 ...could all get to this threshold by the end of the century 12:50 Climate modelling might show us the weather Increased migration and conflict 12:52 But it doesn’t show us its other effects on society 12:56 Established migration patterns could change 12:59 Climate disasters may exacerbate reasons people cross borders 13:03 Within countries, more people will move to cities 13:07 In a 3°C world, tens of millions of people a year... 13:10 ...could be displaced by disasters made worse by climate change 13:15 When people are displaced by climate... 13:18 …they may well go to cities... 13:19 ...because cities are the places that attract people from the countryside already 13:25 A lot of people who can get to the developed world... 13:28 ...not least because the developed world tends to be less hot, will give that a go 13:35 As migration around the world increases... 13:38 ...there could be more competition for fewer resources 13:42 Water—already a highly contested resource—will be a focal point 13:47 Turkey’s new Ilisu dam has reduced the flow of water into Iraq 13:53 China lays claim to rivers vital to India and Pakistan 13:57 The prospect of a water-conflict makes people very uneasy 14:03 How national tensions would exacerbate those sorts of reactions... 14:08 ...in a 3°C world... 14:09 ...is the sort of thing that no one should really want to find out 14:14 I think you’d have to be incredibly sanguine... 14:16 ...not to think that the sort of climate extremes that we talk about... 14:19 ...in a 3°C world wouldn’t lead some places... 14:22 ...to the brink of societal collapse 14:25 Those lucky enough to escape unrest... Adaptation and mitigation are crucial 14:28 ...would still have to adapt to a radically different world 14:32 People can adapt to climate change in all sorts of ways, one of the most obvious ones... 14:37 ...is air conditioning 14:39 But other ways to adapt at a local or regional level... 14:42 ...I mean, one of the most obvious is diversifying agriculture 14:47 There are physical things you can do, like seawalls 14:52 The fact that people can adapt and that adaptation will reduce suffering... 14:57 ...doesn’t mean that it will eliminate suffering 15:00 Suffering is built into this whole process of heating up the planet 15:06 Adaptation will only get the world so far 15:09 The best way to deal with a 3°C world... 15:12 ...is not to go to a 3°C world 15:14 And that’s why increasing efforts on mitigation are important 15:17 It’s why working towards negative emissions... 15:20 ...that could bring down the temperature after it peaks are important 15:25 Once you get to a 3°C world, you are in real bad global trouble 15:33 The scale of change needed... 15:35 ...and the slow progress of governments so far... 15:38 ...means 3°C of warming is uncomfortably likely unless more is done 15:44 Despite existing pledges, greenhouse-gas emissions... 15:48 ...are still set to rise by 16% from 2010 levels by 2030 15:54 The need to act has never been clearer 15:57 There’s still time to reduce emissions, so that a 3°C world remains fiction... 16:02 ...rather than becoming fact

Canada Where Is It? Canada is the biggest country in North America. It is so big that it reaches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. Canada is farther north than most other countries. Canada has only one neighbor, the United States. Ottawa is the country's capital. The city's buildings are fun to visit. People. Nearly all Canadians speak French, English, or both. People come from far-away countries to live in Canada. Together, all of these different people make Canada strong. Most Canadians live in big cities in the south of Canada. Few people live in the far north. Land. Canada has many different landforms. In the west are rows of steep mountains. Then there are flat or rolling plains. A high flat area with thousands of lakes is in the middle. The land in the south is where most of the cities are. In the east are hills. In the north, the land is covered with ice and snow. Animals. Some animals live only in the cold north. Others live only in the mountains or forests. Polar bears and baby harp seals live in the north. They both have white fur to hide on the snow. Big sheep live in the mountains. They have feet that help them climb rocks. Many animals in Canada move in winter and spring. Canada geese fly south every winter. They return in the spring when it is warmer. Celebrations. All across Canada, people celebrate winter. There are festivals for ice-skating and ice carving. There are dogsled races across the snow. The biggest winter festival is in Quebec City. There is an ice castle to visit and games to play. Conclusion. Canada is a very big country with many different landforms and animals. It has many different people, too. Canadians say their differences make them strong.

Jackie Robinson Introduction. African Americans play a big part in professional sports today. For many years, however, black athletes weren't allowed to play with white athletes. Jackie Robinson helped change all that. The Early Years. Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born into a poor Georgia family in 1919. In college, he was a star on his school's football, track, basketball, and baseball teams. His family had little money, however. He left college in 1941 to help support his family and did not finish. Taking a Stand. In December 1941, the United States entered a war. Like many young men, Robinson had to serve in the war. One day, he and a group of soldiers got on an army bus. Robinson poses in his U.S. Army uniform. The bus was segregated. White soldiers sat in the front and black soldiers in the back. Yet Robinson knew he was as good a soldier as the white men. He would not move to the back when he was told to. Robinson was arrested, but he had only stood up for what was right. He was let go. You're Hired! After his time in the army, Robinson played baseball. In 1945, however, baseball was segregated, too. White and black athletes played in separate leagues. Robinson felt that there should not be separate baseball leagues based on skin color. So did Branch Rickey, the man who ran the Brooklyn Dodgers. Rickey wanted the Dodgers to be the first white team to include a black player. Rickey knew that this player would not only have to be a great athlete. He would also have to face prejudice because he was African American. Rickey hired Robinson. He had one condition, though. Robinson could only fight prejudice one way-by playing great baseball. Number 42 Takes the Field Wearing number 42, Robinson took the field on April 15, 1947. A crowd of twenty-six thousand people watched as he walked to the plate. Insults rang out from the other team's dugout, but Robinson just played ball. Equal rights won that day. So did the Dodgers. As for Robinson, he went on to have a great career. In 1962, he became the first African American to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Beyond Baseball. After Robinson stopped playing baseball in 1957, he went into business. He also continued to work for equal rights for all people. He died in 1972. Today in the United States, more people of color play in the world of sports than ever before. We all have Number 42 to thank for that.

Between 1775 and 1782 (the years of the American Revolution) a smallpox epidemic spread across North America. By 1782, the disease had reached the villages of the Mandans and Hidatsas. The death rate was very high. The Dakotas attacked the weakened Mandan villages including On-a-slant village (today the villiage is in Fort Lincoln State Park) and Double Ditch village. By 1790, the survivors (of both disease and war) left the Heart River area and moved north to establish villages near Painted Woods Creek and at the mouth of the Knife River. The Mandans who had once occupied six large villages now lived in two small villages. There were only two remaining Hidatsa villages and another village where both Mandans and Hidatsas lived. The populations of the two tribes had been reduced by 75 percent. The Mandans and Hidatsas also suffered cultural losses because of the smallpox outbreaks. The Mandan villages had always shared some common cultural traits, but each village had a slightly different language. As the survivors were forced to move together for security, the differences disappeared. There were similar cultural losses for the Hidatsas. The Arikaras who lived farther south along the Missouri River also experienced the smallpox epidemic. By 1790, the Arikaras had been reduced from a large population living in 32 villages to a group that occupied two villages. Only 500 men of military age remained of the 4,000 Arikara warriors who had protected their villages in previous decades. In 1801, smallpox struck the people of the northern Great Plains again. This time, the epidemic killed fewer people. It is possible that the survivors of the 1782 epidemic were still immune to the virus this time. In 1830, the Army identified smallpox as a dangerous disease at Indian agencies on the lower Missouri River (in modern-day Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska). The Secretary of War, L. G. Randolph, authorized Indian agents to hire doctors to vaccinate American Indians living at the agencies. However, these agents were not ordered to vaccinate Indians. Many mothers feared the vaccine. They had seen many babies become sick because doctors did not use sterile procedures (which were unknown at the time). Sometimes vaccine was not effective and the children became sick anyway. For a variety of reasons, the Army’s vaccination campaign did little to stop smallpox epidemics among the Indians of the frontier. Indian agents on the frontier were concerned about smallpox. Non-Indian settlers were approaching the lands where the tribes lived. Disease was spreading and the agents begged the Office of Indian Affairs (part of the War Department) to provide vaccine for Indians. Finally, in 1832, Congress passed the Indian Vaccination Act. The bill appropriated $12,000 to purchase vaccine and hire doctors to vaccinate Indians. Exactly which tribes would be vaccinated was not specified in the bill. Secretary of War Lewis Cass, who administered the program, decided that the vaccination program would be extended to tribes that were friendly to the United States, those with important economic roles, and those tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) that were being forced out of southern states to relocation sites in the West. Cass specifically excluded the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras (along with other tribes living farther up the river) from the vaccination program. Cass believed the fur trade on the Upper Missouri River was no longer economically important. He also stated that the treaties that all three tribes signed in 1825 identified them as hostile towards the U. S. and its citizens. (See Document 1.) Other tribes, including the Teton Sioux (Lakotas) did not have such statements in their treaties. Cass excluded the Upper Missouri tribes from vaccination because he considered them to be far removed (both geographically and socially) from “civilized man.”

When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of the “angry young men” in his country’s struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and political chaos. He was the Presidium’s point man in Indonesia’s efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the realization of the ASEAN idea, “making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.” Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesia’s vision of a Southeast Asia developing into “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.” Such a vision, he stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work, patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary. The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his country’s Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust of Malaysia’s relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his country’s foreign affairs. He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts, the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another. “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia,” Tun Abdul Razak said, “must get together and form by ourselves a new perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny”. He added that, “with the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road”. For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking with regional thinking. “We must now think at two levels,” Rajaratnam said. “We must think not only of our national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.” S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. “We are not against anything”, he said, “not against anybody”. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the region. “We want to ensure,” he said, “a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.” The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to adjusting Thailand’s foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he spoke of “building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress. Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny …” While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: “What we have decided today is only a small beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.” The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was the citation, “In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of which was suggested by him.” And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time, the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation. The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific objectives. It represents the organization’s modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that “the Association is open for participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.” ASEAN’s inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist. The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the sheaves is the legend “ASEAN” in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten – representing all ten countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.

A Brief History of Washington’s Crossing of the Delaware River, Christmas Night 1776... In the fall of 1776, General George Washington and his army had suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the British Army. The Continental Army had lost every battle with the British in the New York campaign: Long Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem and White Plains and had surrendered Fort Washington and Fort Lee. At Fort Lee, the army barely escaped and was forced to leave behind its store of provisions, ammunition, and many of its weapons. A sense of defeat had settled around Washington as he was forced to retreat across New Jersey in November and finally to Pennsylvania on December 8, 1776. The British, at least, considered the war over. By December 11th, the only reason the British had not taken Philadelphia, the seat of the Continental Congress, was that Washington had ordered every boat in the Delaware River on the New Jersey side to be brought to the Pennsylvania side, thus denying the British army transportation. Washington knew that the British would be capable of resuming an offensive by crossing the Delaware once it iced over. As the harsh winter set in, the morale of the American troops was at an all-time low. The soldiers were forced to deal with a lack of both food and warm clothing, while Washington watched his army shrink because of desertions and expiring enlistments. Now, more than ever, a victory was desperately needed. Washington devised a courageous plan to take the offensive and cross the Delaware River on Christmas night and attack the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey, nine miles south of his encampment near McConkey's Ferry. The original plan called for three divisions to cross the Delaware under the cover of darkness. Lt. Col. John Cadwalader's division was to cross at Bristol and engage the southern most contingent of British forces — Hessian troops under the command of Colonel von Donop. General James Ewing's division was to cross at Trenton Ferry and take a position south of Assunpink Creek below Trenton and hold the bridge over that stream. Washington's division was to cross at McConkey's Ferry and then divide into two corps under General Nathanael Greene and General John Sullivan. Their point of attack was Trenton and the Hessian troops quartered there under the command of Colonel Johann Gottlieb Rall. The boats to be used for the crossing were gathered earlier in the month in compliance with General Washington's orders, primarily as a defensive measure. Various types of boats had been collected, most notably the large Durham boats used to carry pig iron down the Delaware to the Philadelphia markets. There were a number of problems in moving a large number of men, cannons, and supplies in an age when overland transportation was by foot and animal power. The roads were rutted and winding. There were no bridges over major rivers because the technology did not exist to span great distances. A river like the Delaware was crossed by ferry, sometimes out of service because of ice floes or floods, and certainly not designed to carry masses of men and equipment across quickly. A river could be a formidable natural barrier to an army on the move. Washington had several logistical concerns for the crossing. In addition to the troops were the cannon; each of which required at least two horses to pull it. The heavier twelve pounders, and probably the eight pounders, had four horses. There would have been between four and six ammunitions wagons. Officers of the rank of colonel or higher may have had horses. In sum, Washington had to move 2,400 men, eighteen cannons, at least four ammunition wagons and fifty to seventy-five horses across the Delaware River the night of December 25, 1776. Fully expecting to be supported by Cadwalader's and Ewing's divisions south of Trenton, Washington assembled his own troops near McKonkey's Ferry in preparation for the crossing. By 6:00 pm, 2,400 men had begun crossing the ice-chocked river. There was an abrupt change in the weather, forcing the men to fight their way through sleet and a blinding snowstorm. The river was flooded with sheets of ice moving at eleven or twelve miles per hour. These obstacles proved to be too much for the two supporting divisions led by Generals Cadwalader and Ewing, who did not cross at their assigned points along the river. It was Washington's pure force of will and determination that led to his troops' successful crossing of the river. Increasing Washington's odds were the sailors of Marblehead, Massachusetts. This group of hardened seamen, led by Col. John Glover, were used to the Nor'easters of New England. Sheer determination and muscles conditioned to the demands of rowing under the weather conditions now facing the Continental army enabled the Marbleheaders to row back and forth across the Delaware countless times. During the time of the Revolution, American soldiers marched single file along the margins of the roads. They were only assembled into a battle line (three deep) when they reached the battlefield. The battle plan had Washington's army marching in two divisions... General Greene's and General Sullivan's. They made a night march in two columns on separate roads, a very tricky operation that was prone to failure since the columns needed to arrive at the battlefield at the same time to carry out the surprise attack planned by Washington. The American army carried out the march flawlessly. Against all odds, Washington and his men successfully completed the crossing and marched to Trenton on the morning of December 26th and, in the resulting battle, achieved a resounding victory over the Hessians. By moving ahead with his bold and daring plan, General Washington reignited the cause of freedom and gave new life to the American Revolution.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes