The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
The scientific data that encouraged nations to protect the environment is the level and air pollution produced in major cities of the world with their industries, as is the case of the United States of China. The same for air and water pollution.
Another reason is the evidence of climate change due to global warming.
Other important scientific data is the soil degradation in lands that used to be very fertile to grow crops. Most countries have overexploited raw material and non-renewable natural resources. Jungles and forests are faced with biodiversity loss and deforestation due to excessive industrial practices.
Regarding the sea, most oceans present acidification and plastic trash in different regions of the oceans.
The problem is that major industries around the world did not have any respect or consideration for taking care of nature. These industries were only interested in big profits no matter what. They produced their goods and polluted the air, polluted the water, and also contributed to noise pollution.
In 1849 Carl Schurz came to America. He settled in Wisconsin, studied law, heard Abraham Lincoln debate Stephen A. Douglas, and became a big Lincoln fan. When Lincoln was elected president in 1860, he named Carl Schurz ambassador to Spain. Then he asked Schurz to come home to fight in the Civil War and made him a general.
After the war, Schurz became a newspaper writer, an editor, a U.S. senator, and secretary of the interior See It Now - Carl Schurz Addressing the Reform Conference. He worked to conserve the wilderness and to be fair to Indians when hardly anyone thought of those things. Like many American immigrants, Schurz had fallen in love with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the guarantees of the Constitution: "If you want to be free," he said, "there is but one way. It is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors."
To me, as a third-year law student, the correct approach is "living document."
The number one reason for this is that the Constitution was written in the late 1700s. The framers could not have envisioned, let alone written, a document that considered a world with the internet, access to space, etc.
So, our choices are either to have a new Constitutional convention OR adapt the current document.
I choose the latter.
D. is definitely the correct answer<span />
