In the digital age, false information can spread across the internet faster than ever before. The rapid growth of social media and advancing technology has created an environment where misinformation has become easier to create, share, and amplify, reaching millions of people before it can be corrected. 

Research shows that false information spreads significantly farther and faster online than factual ones. In one study, the top 1% of false news stories spread to between 1,000 and 100,000 people, while truthful stories rarely reached more than 1,000. Falsehoods travel deeper and more broadly across social networks in nearly every category of information, particularly when the topic involves politics. 

Part of the reason lies in how social media platforms are structured. Traditional news organizations typically rely on editors, fact-checkers, and established verification processes to prevent the publication of false claims. Social media, however, allows nearly anyone to post information instantly. With rapid publication and peer-to-peer sharing, users can distribute content to large audiences in seconds. By the time misleading information is identified, it may have already been shared thousands of times. 

Algorithms, the systems that determine what users see in their feeds, also play a powerful role. These algorithms are designed primarily to keep users engaged rather than ensure that content is accurate. Posts that provoke strong emotional reactions such as anger, fear, or outrage often receive more attention. Since misinformation frequently triggers those emotions, it can frequently trigger the platform’s engagement-based systems, pushing it to wider audiences. 

Automated accounts, mostly known as bots, are computer programs that generate and share content while interacting with real users. These bots can mimic human behavior and rapidly spread misleading stories, making them appear more popular or widely supported than they actually are. Another factor is circulating reporting, in which one outlet publishes questionable information and other outlets repeat it while citing the original source. As more reports reference each other, the claim can appear credible even if it was never verified. 

Echo chambers, online environments where existing beliefs are reinforced by consistent repetition, can further accelerate the spread of false information. In these spaces, users are surrounded mostly by people who share similar viewpoints. When the same claims appear repeatedly within a like-minded community, they may begin to feel credible, even if they are inaccurate. Experts say that these environments can make it harder for factual information to break through and challenge widely shared misconceptions. 

Human psychology also contributes to the problem. Confirmation bias leads to people to seek out information that supports what they already believe while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Another process, known as motivated reasoning, can cause individuals to evaluate information based on whether it aligns with their personal or political identity. When a claim fits their worldview, people may accept it quickly; when it challenges their beliefs, they may dismiss it. 

Belief is not always required for misinformation to spread. Studies suggest people sometimes share misleading content for other reasons, such as signaling their political identity, criticizing opponents, or gaining attention and social approval online. Simply being exposed to misinformation can also increase the likelihood that someone will pass it along, even if they are unsure whether it is true. 

As misinformation continues to circulate widely online, researchers say understanding how and why it spreads is a crucial step toward slowing its impact. Recognizing the role of technology, psychology and online communities may help readers navigate the digital landscape more critically, and think twice before sharing information. 

The environmental movement in the United States emerged in response to the rapid industrial growth in the mid-20th century. As factories expanded and cities grew, pollution became a big problem where smog filled the air, water was contaminated, and harmful chemicals, including DDT, hurt ecosystems. Many Americans finally started to see the harmful impact pollution was not only having on the environment, but also its threat on human health.

In 1962, the environment finally began to gain awareness after the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which exposed the dangers of pesticides and their impact on wildlife. This book shocked the American people and helped cause a national conversation about maintaining a safe environment. Carson’s book helped jumpstart the environmental movement.

Since the public finally became concerned about the environment, people’s worries quickly turned into action. The First Earth Day in 1970 brought over 20 million Americans together to protest environmental damage, marking one of the largest environmental movements that is still celebrated to this day. This also led to government movements, causing the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the passing of other laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. This helped lay the foundation for future environmental protection in the United States.

Today, the environmental movement has grown past pollution control to address global challenges such as climate change, deforestation, and sustainability. While the early movement focused on pollution, environmental efforts today are based on long-term environmental health and the future of the planet.

Specifically, in Cherry Hill, there are recycling programs that reduce landfill waste and encourage responsible disposal. Cherry Hill has also invested in green infrastructure, like rain gardens and permeable pavement, to manage stormwater and protect waterways such as the Cooper River. In addition, preserving land like Croft Farm and Cooper River Park helps maintain biodiversity while giving residents access to nature.

The environmental movement began as a response to pollution, but today it depends on consistent community action.

“I think this is truly a big thing that can affect our world, and I always do my best to carpool and turn off the water when I brush my teeth and do simple things around the house because they really do add up and have true effects in our world,” said Anna Bardunias (‘26). 

In Cherry Hill, initiatives like recycling programs, green infrastructure, the Earth Festival, and community tree planting show how environmental responsibility has become part of everyday life. However, students also see that there are still small and easy changes that can positively impact the environment.

“Online assignments help the environment, but so many teachers hand out a lot of paper assignments that we don’t use or turn in. They can help the environment by doing more online assignments or consolidate paper assignments,” said Paige Heskin (‘26). 

As environmental challenges continue, Cherry Hill shows that meaningful change starts in the community, where individual actions lead to a greater impact.

We’ve all been told to recycle, it’s one of the simplest ways we can all help the environment. We’re told to put our plastic bottles, tin cans, and paper in recycling bins and that somewhere down the line it will become something new. But in recent years, many people have raised their concerns about how recycling is a scam and does more harm than the good that is promoted online. 

The term “recycling” is often used loosely and misleadingly, describing a process where materials take on a new purpose. In reality recycling is a process, involving the collection and processing of used materials to make new products. Aluminium and glass cans can be melted down and recycled almost indefinitely with no loss of quality, and paper can be transformed into pulp and recycled to make new paper products time and time again. Yet, recycling is also a real process that involves huge effort and investment to sort, clean, process and manufacture recycled products. In practice, the process cannot succeed if materials are contaminated, not sorted properly or deemed economically unviable to process. This increasingly is the case, and many materials end up in the landfill despite being placed in recycling bins.

For reasons like this, recycling gets a bad name. The vast majority of plastic types are unable to be recycled due to their complex chemical make-up. Of the seven main types of plastic, only 2 (PET and HDPE) are widely accepted for recycling. Even more are the mixed plastics (which have a variety of different types within them) and the thin films like plastic bags and packaging (which are also difficult to recycle). In reality, a lot of plastic that is put into recycling bins cannot actually be recycled. However, there is another, equally influential, factor at play: contamination.

Items like greasy pizza boxes or unwashed food containers are the perfect examples of contaminants. In a recycling facility, these items can affect the entire batch of material. Unfortunately, even with the best contamination procedures in place, mistakes can still happen. This means that even the smallest mistake made by a consumer can have serious consequences for the material as a whole.

Several economic trends have impacted the recycling landscape as well. As the market value of many types of materials has decreased in recent years, the financial viability of building new recycling facilities has been called into question. As a general rule, it is usually more cost-effective for manufacturers to produce new plastic from petroleum products than it is to collect, sort and process used plastic. As a result, much of our used plastic is shipped overseas to countries with little recycling infrastructure and treated as trash. In reality the “recycle” is shipped to our landfills or incinerators and burned for energy. Many people are upset that corporations, which profit from using single-use plastic packages, have continued to promote recycling in order to shift responsibility from manufacturers to consumers.

Recycling is often maligned as a scam or pointless to consumers. This view is unfair in that while there are some materials for which recycling does not work very well, recycling does work and has a lot of benefits. However, it is not and should not be touted as a panacea for waste. All too often it is presented as the only option rather than as the third option in a line of preferred actions to deal with waste. The first preferred method is to avoid generating waste in the first place (reduce), followed by reusing items where possible. It is only after these two options have been exhausted that recycling becomes the next best option.

Recycling is both bad for you and for the environment, in that it creates false hope and allows people to continue waste-intensive lifestyles while occasionally pretending to be green. In the end, it is a seriously flawed system which has been marketed as incredibly easy and as a remedy for climate change. While it does have some uses, recycling can no longer be viewed as “the answer.” Instead, we should strive to understand its very limited meanings and start working towards a more holistic reduction of waste.

When temperatures plunge and snow piles up, the idea of global warming can feel far away. A freezing morning seems to contradict the notion of a heating planet. However, scientists say that impression misses the bigger picture.

At the heart of the confusion is a simple distinction: weather versus climate. Weather describes short-term conditions, in other words, what you feel when you step outside each day. Climate reflects long-term trends measured over decades. A single cold snap, no matter how intense, is just a small piece of a much larger system.

Earth’s climate has always included natural seasonal shifts, but global warming is changing how those systems behave. As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane accumulate in the atmosphere, they trap heat, raising the planet’s overall temperature. That extra heat doesn’t distribute evenly, and the imbalance can disrupt long-standing atmospheric patterns.

Nowhere is this disruption more visible than in the Arctic. The region is warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet, a process known as Arctic amplification. This rapid warming weakens the temperature contrast between the Arctic and lower latitudes, a contrast that normally helps keep cold air locked in place. 

Without that strong temperature difference, the jet stream, a high-altitude current of fast-moving air, becomes less stable. Instead of flowing in a relatively straight path, it begins to ripple and dip. When those dips stretch far enough south, they pull frigid Arctic air into areas that don’t typically experience such extreme cold. 

The polar vortex plays a role as well. This swirling mass of cold air usually stays contained near the North Pole, held in place by strong winds. However, as atmospheric conditions become more volatile, the vortex can weaken or stretch, allowing bursts of icy air to escape and travel southward. 

Ironically, a warmer atmosphere can also make winter storms more intense. Warmer air holds more moisture, which can lead to heavier snowfall when temperatures drop. The result is a paradox: fewer cold days overall, but occasionally, more severe winter weather when those cold conditions do occur. 

Even with these dramatic cold events, the long-term trend is unmistakable. Global temperatures have risen significantly since the late 19th century, and recent years consistently rank among the hottest on record. In fact, record-breaking heat now outpaces record-breaking cold by a wide margin. 

Scientists rely on decades of data, not isolated weather events, to understand climate change. Their findings show that natural factors alone cannot explain the current warming trend. Instead, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities aligns closely with the changes being observed worldwide. 

So, while a deep freeze might feel like evidence against global warming, it actually highlights how complex and interconnected Earth’s climate system is. In a warming world, extreme cold isn’t disappearing entirely, rather, it’s becoming part of a more unpredictable climate story.