hello there
Andrea's point is probably the answer you're looking for, however, you should keep in mind that many (most?) environmental laws are driven more by politics than by the available data. Scientists do research on any number of topics (environmental or not) that have implications for our society. We (scientists) like to think that policy makers take our data and results into consideration when drafting legislation, but I would say that in my experience this rarely happens. For one, there have rarely been any federal legislators who understand science. Even the few physicians who've gone into politics seem largely to fail to understand very basic tenets of science, or at least they don't often demonstrate it with their political actions. Leaving environmental issues, for example, if politicians took science into account, there would be no discussion in any school district in the country about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, as there are simply *NO* scientists who are qualified to have an opinion who would suggest it shouldn't. Environmental issues are not really any different.
hope that helped bye
Answer:
23.383 is the exact area and 23.4 would be rounded to the nearest tenth.
Explanation:
the answer to this is Livestock hope this helps
please mark Brainliest
Answer: A.
The amount of violence has been decreasing, so few people have been killed.
Explanation:
The "War on Drugs" does indeed see the U.S. government spending more than $500 million a year as they raid supply chains and arrest traffickers to stem the flow of drugs into the U.S.
Most of the violence does occur near the U.S.-Mexico border as gangs fight to control smuggling routes and U.S. agents attempt to stop them along with police officer, most of whom are dedicated to ending drug smuggling.
The violence however has not been decreasing. Indeed, cartels have become more violent and with the rise of new cartels like the New Jalisco cartel, the violence has spread.
