What would modern life be without plastics? According to the World Economic Forum, plastic production has skyrocketed over the last 50 years, growing from 16.5 million tons in 1964 to 343 million tons in 2014. But with this huge rise of plastic manufacturing comes immense negative impacts of improper or insufficient waste management—most of which affects impoverished nations that don’t have the economic stability to fix the problem.

   Mass consumption of plastics in the United States only started a little less than 70 years ago, with the first major commercial plastic spray bottle kicking off disposable consumerism. From there, single-use plastics began to make their mark in the United States, with many corporations such as Coca-Cola switching from glass bottles to plastic ones because of the significant decrease in manufacturing costs. As the demand for mass consumerism increased, so did the demand for disposables, which in turn has created a massive waste management issue within the US. 

   According to a 2018 United States Census Bureau report, 32 percent of single-use plastics end up in the ocean, with the other 78 percent of US plastic production being shipped to developing countries with poor waste management. The worst part is, almost all of the exported plastic that is being shipped overseas is also being counted as “recycled” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, India and Indonesia accept more than 429 shipping containers of U.S. waste every single day. This creates substantial environmental and economic issues for these countries, but many developing nations will still accept plastic waste because of the short-term economic gains that are associated with it. But even the short-term monetary benefits of accepting over 100,000 shipping containers of U.S. waste annually will never equate to its long-term effects.

   So why does the United States send so much plastic overseas? According to Jenna Jambeck, Ph.D., associate professor of engineering at the University of Georgia, it is more economical to push plastics out of the country rather than to recycle them. And with most of these developing countries trying to make a profit off of remanufacturing U.S. waste, no one is analyzing the underlying issues and massive risks in dumping all of this trash into these areas. “Plastic doesn’t just affect the oceans, it also pollutes the air and water on land—and it directly harms humans too,” Christine Cole said, a research associate at Loughborough University. “Poor waste management is linked to diseases or conditions such as diarrhea, cholera, respiratory illness and eye and skin infections.” According to a WasteAid report, roughly 9 million people die every year from diseases linked to either mismanagement of waste or pollutants.

   Unfortunately, the United States is not the only developed nation sending waste to these countries. Places like the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Japan also send plastics overseas, with Canada and South Korea even going as far as re-exporting American waste. According to Jenna Jambeck’s study, “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into Ocean,” high waste mismanagement rates are considered 5 percent and larger. Most of the developing countries that accept trash have mismanagement rates of more than 80 percent, with both Indonesia and Vietnam having over 85 percent. In turn, most of these regions are forced to dump trash into local waters because of how unbearable the waste becomes for its citizens. According to the Ocean Conservancy, 60 percent of the plastic trash flowing into the seas originates from China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. Areas like the Con Vanh Beach in Vietnam are completely littered and flooded with waste, damaging the local environment and making it impossible for citizens to enjoy their homes.

   There are several reasons why the United States, as well as other developed countries, should stop the exportation of waste into these regions—the first being the effects that plastic waste has had on the citizens. Many of these nations receive a huge flow of trash that flood their ports and docks. Citizens like Daniel Tay from Malaysia have pushed for import restrictions to help put an end to the overflow, but most developing countries have still failed to implement regulations on waste. The second reason why the U.S. should stop shipping trash overseas is because many Americans don’t realize how big of a problem this really is. With less than 10 percent of plastics being recycled in the United States, almost all waste consumption is being pumped into these areas with little to no education about it. If the U.S. is transparent about the volume of plastic waste that is consumed and produced within the country, American citizens will be able to recognize and acknowledge how prevalent an issue single-use plastics truly is. Another huge reason why the U.S. should stop exporting waste is because of the need for legislation to strengthen within America’s recycling system. By sending so much plastic to developing countries, the need to develop a national recycling infrastructure gets neglected. The United States needs to take responsibility for how much trash is consumed within its borders because, if not, the amount of waste that is produced will not decrease and will only cause more pain and devastation to the nations that are being used as America’s dumping grounds.

   With climate change becoming an increasingly more imperative issue, it is only fundamentally imperative to analyze the effects that waste consumption has on the environment and people. The longer we allow mass consumerism to manipulate and define our everyday lives, the longer we will allow our governments and multinational corporations to take advantage of impoverished nations and the natural environment that creates and makes up our world.

With the recent shift in United States foreign policy flooding the news, the question of why U.S. troops were removed from northern Syria, and the consequences associated with that decision, has only continued to get answered as the rise of conflict and devastation between Turkey and Syria continues to get worse. As military and political upheaval intensifies between the two nations, the question of whether or not US-Syria relations can ever be amended remains imperative in deciding what next steps to take.

   The news of the withdrawal was released on Oct. 6, when the White House officially announced President Trump’s decision to take U.S. troops out of northern Syria. “I don’t think our soldiers should be there for the next 50 years guarding a border between Turkey and Syria when we can’t guard our own borders at home,” Trump said during a campaign rally at the Value Voters Summit in Washington. Many experts on Syria criticized President Trump’s decision and expressed fear of the potential political repercussions of the withdrawal, exclaiming that the abandonment of U.S. troops could widen the eight-year Syrian conflict, cause a Turkish incursion and threaten the progress made towards establishing security between Syria and the Islamic State. “Allowing Turkey to move into northern Syria is one of the most destabilizing moves we can do in the Middle East,” Arizona Representative Ruben Gallego stated in a tweet that Sunday. “The Kurds will never trust America again. They will look for new alliances or independence to protect themselves.”

   United States involvement in Syria dates all the way back to World War II, with much of the focus in recent years being on ISIS and ways to avert its expansion. Since the removal of U.S. troops, Turkey has begun military action in northern Syria, causing many Syrians to flee their homes in search of asylum. According to a recent United Nations report, over 100,000 people were displaced only three days into the Turkish military invasion, and over 400,000 are searching for sources of water and medical assistance. Violence has gotten so bad that many goverments, such as in Russia, China and the EU, are pushing efforts toward reconciliation between Syria and Turkey, with some nations such as France and Germany going as far as suspending artillery exports to the Middle East. As more Islamic State attacks are released  northern Syria, the concern for the expansion and growth of ISIS becomes more of a prevalent issue as well.

   Amid the current devastations of the withdrawal, the pullout of U.S. troops came as a shock for many, especially the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). “The statement came as a surprise, and we can say that it is a stab in the back for the SDF,” spokesman Kino Gabriel told Arabic TV station al-Hadath. The shift in U.S. foreign policy went against the advice of many senior officials in the Pentagon as well, with former U.S. presidential envoy Brett McGurk saying the pullout displayed a “complete lack of understanding of anything happening on the ground.” Although U.S. troops were removed from northern Syria, the Senate is hoping to reverse the decision that President Trump made and introduce an opposing resolution. “A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria would only benefit Russia, Iran and the Assad regime,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “It would increase the risk that ISIS and other terrorist groups regroup.”

   So why shouldn’t President Trump have withdrawn troops from Syria? There are several reasons, the first being the likelihood of ISIS resurfacing. The United States has been working with Syria for years, with the hopes that by stationing U.S. troops in the region, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would be decimated. But by withdrawing the U.S. military, the chances of ISIS reclaiming their land is extremely high and very likely. The other reason is the fact that Turkey will now have no reason not to invade northeastern Syria and Kurdish territory. For the past few years, the United States collaborated with Syria on ways to prevent a Turkish incursion. But now, the pullout of U.S. military has opened the door for Turkey to push back America’s former allies, occupying northeastern Syria and potentially causing a national Syrian genocide and political refugee crisis.

   The conflict between Turkey and Syria is only getting worse. With over hundreds of casualties already, the withdrawal of U.S. troops has only caused devastation and harm to northern Syrians and Kurds. And as the progression of Turkish invasion continues to escalate, the question of whether or not foreign policy should only consist of self-interests and domestic gains remains essential in determining if there is still room for basic human compassion within the political sphere.

 As the environmental emergency continues to worsen, more and more people are standing up and demanding ecological justice—both domestically and internationally. And with last month’s global climate strike, it is getting harder for lawmakers to ignore the collective minority and their call for better environmental policies. With over four million demonstrators protesting for the ecological crisis worldwide, the fight for massive radical change is growing rapidly, with many rallies happening right here in St. Louis.

   On Sept. 20,  hundreds of St. Louisans participated in the global strike for climate justice. Protestors gathered right outside of St. Louis City Hall before they marched through the streets to show their frustrations and demands for the ecological crisis. “I’m glad there was a strike in St. Louis,” Robin Orgar-Bailey said, a local resident who attended the protest. “I’m from New York, and sometimes it feels like the Midwest ignores global issues. I’m participating because the environment has been an issue my whole life, and it’s getting worse, not better. And so I strike for those who can’t take time off work or school, or don’t have the luxury of travelling to a city to strike.” With more than 10 public speakers demonstrating their desire for environmental equity, St. Louis was one out of hundreds of U.S. cities to participate in the international protest—shining a light on the comprehensive climate issue and pushing towards radical ecological action locally.

   Beginning at 10 a.m. Friday morning, St. Louis demonstrators expressed several demands to Missouri lawmakers in relation to climate change. The first demand was better environmental policies, both nationally and regionally. Claire Stolze, a senior at McKinley Classical Leadership Academy high school, argued for “policies that incorporate both racial injustice and its correlation to environmental injustice.” Other speakers focused on ways citizens can implement more sustainable habits into their daily lives. Jenn DeRose, Known & Grown Manager at Missouri Coalition for the Environment, spoke on behalf of the Known & Grown program to express the importance of buying meat and produce locally. “By buying from local Known & Grown farmers in your area, you will reduce your overall carbon impact and support more environmentally friendly practices,” DeRose said. Local farmers in St. Louis who partner with the program must adhere to certain sustainable farming habits.

   The impact that the climate strike had internationally was massive. Over 160 countries participated, with many demonstrations continuing throughout the course of that week. Hundreds of Google and Amazon workers walked out on their jobs that Friday to strike, with the hopes that both companies would put an end to all computing contracts with the fossil fuel industry. “We have to address a lot of dealings that we have with oil and gas companies and the funding that goes into the lobbying groups that support climate denial,” Cat Han said, a software developer at Amazon who came out to support the strike. Activists pressured their governments on local issues in their area, with St. Louis protestors advocating for the shutdown of the Peabody Corporate Headquarters, a local energy and coal company in the city.

   With more than 5,000 climate strikes across the globe that day, people around the world are beginning to stand  up to legislators and demand that the ecological emergency is taken seriously. By raising awareness internationally and recognizing that the climate crisis is not only an environmental issue, but an ethical obligation, protestors hope that the recent demonstrations illustrate the importance of global unity and working towards a brighter future. A future that values the importance of the ecosystem and its significance to everything that is, and everything that will be—from St. Louis and beyond.