Analytical Articles 

The Arctic region, once a remote and largely inaccessible area, has become a focal point of international geopolitical interest due to climate change and the subsequent melting of polar ice. This environmental transformation has unveiled new opportunities for resource extraction and the development of strategic maritime routes, notably the Northern Sea Route. Among the areas attracting significant attention is the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, situated strategically in the Arctic Ocean. Svalbard's unique geopolitical status and abundant natural resources have drawn the interest of major global powers, particularly Russia and China, leading to a complex interplay of international relations and strategic interests.

Svalbard's Geopolitical Significance

Svalbard occupies a unique position in international law and geopolitics. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 grants Norway sovereignty over the archipelago but allows citizens of signatory countries equal rights to engage in commercial activities, including mining and fishing. This arrangement has facilitated a multinational presence on the islands, with Russia maintaining a continuous presence through settlements like Barentsburg. China, a signatory to the treaty since 1925, has also established a foothold by setting up the Yellow River Research Station in Ny-Ålesund in 2004, marking its first scientific outpost in the Arctic. 

Radio Free Asia

Russia's Strategic Interests

For Russia, the Arctic is a region of paramount strategic importance. The Northern Sea Route, which runs along Russia's Arctic coast, offers a shorter maritime path between Europe and Asia, potentially revolutionizing global shipping. Russia has invested heavily in developing this route, viewing it as a means to enhance its economic and strategic standing. Additionally, the Arctic is rich in untapped natural resources, including oil and gas reserves, which Russia aims to exploit to bolster its energy sector. The presence of Russian settlements in Svalbard, such as Barentsburg, underscores Moscow's intent to maintain and expand its influence in the region. 

CSIS

China's Expanding Role

China's interest in the Arctic has grown markedly over the past two decades. Beijing has declared itself a "near-Arctic state" and has articulated ambitions to integrate the Arctic into its Belt and Road Initiative, referring to this extension as the "Polar Silk Road." China's activities in Svalbard, particularly through scientific research, are part of a broader strategy to establish a presence in the Arctic. While these research endeavors are officially civilian, concerns have been raised about their potential dual-use applications, including military and strategic purposes. 

Newsweek

Norway's Response and NATO's Involvement

Norway, as the sovereign authority over Svalbard, faces the challenge of balancing its obligations under the Svalbard Treaty with national security concerns. The increasing activities of Russia and China have prompted Oslo to enhance its surveillance and defense capabilities in the region. Norway is also working closely with NATO allies to monitor and respond to these developments, recognizing that the Arctic's strategic importance has implications for the entire alliance. The concept of "Arctic exceptionalism," which once kept the region insulated from global geopolitical tensions, is eroding as great-power competition intensifies. 

CSIS

International Relations Theories and Concepts

The situation in Svalbard can be analyzed through various international relations theories and concepts:

• Geopolitics: This refers to the influence of geographic factors on international politics. Svalbard's location makes it a strategic asset for controlling Arctic sea routes and accessing natural resources.

• Realism: This theory posits that states act primarily in their self-interest, seeking power and security. Russia and China's actions in the Arctic can be seen as efforts to enhance their strategic positions and secure resources.

• Sovereignty: Norway's sovereignty over Svalbard is recognized, but the stipulations of the Svalbard Treaty create a complex dynamic where multiple states have vested interests, leading to potential conflicts over jurisdiction and control.

• Security Dilemma: Norway's bolstering of defenses in response to Russian and Chinese activities could lead to an arms race in the region, as other states feel compelled to enhance their own military capabilities.

Current Political Context

The geopolitical dynamics in the Arctic are influenced by broader international developments. The war in Ukraine has strained Russia's relations with Western nations, leading Moscow to seek stronger ties with Beijing. This partnership extends into the Arctic, where both nations find common cause in countering Western influence. Concurrently, the United States and NATO are recalibrating their Arctic strategies to address the challenges posed by this emerging alliance. The potential re-election of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has previously expressed interest in Arctic territories like Greenland, adds another layer of complexity to the region's geopolitical landscape. 

New York Magazine

Conclusion

The evolving situation in Svalbard exemplifies the shifting dynamics of Arctic geopolitics. As environmental changes open new avenues for economic and strategic endeavors, the actions of Russia and China in the region reflect broader trends in international relations, including the pursuit of strategic advantage and resource security. Norway's responses, in coordination with NATO, highlight the challenges smaller states face in safeguarding sovereignty amid great-power competition. The Arctic is transitioning from a zone of low tension to a theater of strategic rivalry, necessitating careful navigation of international laws and norms to prevent conflict and ensure sustainable development.

The confluence of state sovereignty with human rights concepts in the complex field of international law frequently ignites intense discussions and piques the interest of both individuals and officials. This complex tapestry, which is weaved with the strands of interventionism and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), reveals a precarious equilibrium between national sovereignty and the global obligation to preserve human dignity [1]. 

Interventionism poses a moral dilemma since it is defined as when outside forces meddle in a country's internal affairs to rectify abuses of human rights [2]. Supporters promote it as a ray of hope, a way to stop crimes and spare suffering from disadvantaged groups. However, detractors proceed with caution, concerned about the possible infringement of sovereign rights and unexpected outcomes. A clear example of this is the 1999 NATO involvement in Kosovo, in which bombings were carried out in response to ethnic unrest without UN approval [3]. Although no lives were lost, doubts persisted over the legality of circumventing the UN Security Council and the precedent established for unilateral action [4].

Humanitarian intervention is ingrained in interventionism; it is the personification of kindness in the face of conflict [5]. Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a UN-sanctified guiding principle, affirms that it is the responsibility of the international community to stop crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. However, putting R2P into practice is a maze of intricate details. A NATO coalition's 2011 involvement in Libya was supposed to protect citizens from repression by the government, but it turned into a campaign to overthrow the current administration, creating instability throughout the area [6]. This story highlights the necessity for careful consideration in interventionist attempts by encapsulating the complex dance between humanitarian ambitions and geopolitical realities [7].

The intervention has many unintended consequences that permanently alter the field of international relations. Interventions can have long-lasting effects, such as lengthy hostilities, humanitarian disasters, and regional instability, even while they may provide momentary relief from misery. An important reminder is the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq [8]. Notwithstanding the well-meaning attempts to advance democracy, the intervention caused instability, shattering social cohesion, and escalating violations of human rights. The wounds inflicted by conflict provide witness to the complex network of repercussions that results from tipping the scales between interventionism and sovereignty.

A careful hand—a combination of legal knowledge and moral strength—is required to negotiate the complex web of state sovereignty and human rights. The legality of interventionism as a safeguard against injustice is contingent upon compliance with established legal frameworks and multinational collaboration. The knowledge gained from previous initiatives emphasizes the necessity of openness, responsibility, and diplomatic outreach. Maintaining human rights without sacrificing sovereignty is crucial as the world community faces new and changing problems. As a result of this endeavor, international cooperation and communication become rays of hope that point mankind in the direction of a future devoid of injustice and filled with dignity and peace.

The conversation over R2P and interventionism ultimately speaks to the core of our common humanity and goes beyond legalese. It calls us to face moral conundrums, to stand up for justice, and to defend the intrinsic worth of every person, regardless of their location or allegiance. Let us answer the call to action to create a society in which human rights are not only idealistic concepts but actual, practical realities for everyone, as we negotiate the complexity of international law and government.

Further investigation into historical settings, case studies, and academic assessments is necessary to fully comprehend the complexities of interventionism and R2P [9]. We may learn a great deal about the achievements, failures, and moral conundrums that come with prior interventions, such as those in Rwanda, Darfur, and Syria [10][11]. Furthermore, studying the changing international norms and legal frameworks related to interventionism and the responsibility to protect provides a more nuanced understanding of the potential and difficulties associated with advancing human rights while upholding state sovereignty. In addition, having multidisciplinary conversations with professionals in disciplines like sociology, political science, and ethics broadens our horizons and encourages the development of comprehensive strategies for dealing with difficult international problems.

It is also impossible to overestimate the influence that non-state actors—such as grassroots movements, civil society organizations, and humanitarian organizations—have had on the language and actions surrounding interventionism and responsibility to protect [12]. These individuals frequently work as change agents by promoting the defense of human rights and demanding accountability from national and international authorities. Their advocacy campaigns, grassroots projects, and humanitarian endeavors support the promotion of human rights standards and the practical application of R2P.

Let us not waver in our dedication to protecting human dignity, advancing justice, and cultivating peace as we negotiate the complex terrain of international law and governance. By working together, having educated conversations, and exhibiting moral leadership, we may work toward a future in which everyone's rights and liberties are upheld and safeguarded, overcoming boundaries and obstacles. By doing this, we uphold the values of interventionism and R2P as guiding principles that point the way toward a more equitable and compassionate international system rather than as theoretical ideas.

[1] "What Is R2P? - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect." 2023. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. June 24, 2023. https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/.

[2] Sibii, Razvan. 2014. "Interventionism | International Relations & Global Impact." Encyclopedia Britannica. June 27, 2014. https://www.britannica.com/topic/interventionism.

[3] Nato. n.d. "NATO's Role in Kosovo." NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48818.htm.

[4] Greenwood, Christopher. "International Law and the NATO Intervention in Kosovo." The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2000): 926–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/761769.

[5] Bell, Duncan. 2013. "Humanitarian Intervention | International Law & Human Rights." Encyclopedia Britannica. May 20, 2013. https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention.

[6] Nato. n.d. "NATO and Libya (Archived)." NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_71652.htm.

[7] Apavia. 2022. "The EU, NATO and the Libya Crisis: Scaling Ambitions Down?" Atlantic Council. November 18, 2022. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/the-eu-nato-and-the-libya-crisis-scaling-ambitions-down/.

[8] "Rebuilding Iraq: U.S. Achievements Through the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund." n.d. https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/60857.htm.

[9] "The Rise and Fall of the Responsibility to Protect." 2023. World101 From the Council on Foreign Relations. April 20, 2023. https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/rise-and-fall-responsibility-protect.

[10] "The Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda." n.d. Council of Councils. https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/challenge-humanitarian-intervention-rwanda.

[11] Pradhan, Ramakrushna, and Anantagopal Sing. 2024. "Humanitarian Intervention in Syria: A Critical Analysis." International Studies, March. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817241228385.

[12] "Human Rights Activism and the Role of NGOs - Manual for Human Rights Education With Young People - www.coe.int." n.d. Manual for Human Rights Education With Young People. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/human-rights-activism-and-the-role-of-ngos.

April 11th, 2024 

By: Javier Quinones-Casanova 

Over recent years, China's military actions in contested maritime areas have alarmed neighboring countries and international observers. Referred to as "realistic combat-oriented confrontational exercises," these actions carry significant international law ramifications [1]. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal framework for military maneuvers in disputed seas, with a special emphasis on China's actions and their compliance with international standards. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has garnered international attention for its strong actions, particularly in the South China Sea. In a series of military drills known as "realistic combat-oriented confrontational exercises," the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been testing its military prowess in these disputed waterways. These exercises are supposed to be training exercises, but they also function as displays of military and political might.

Based on established international legal rules on the use of force, military operations, and maritime dispute settlement, China's military drills in disputed waters are considered legitimate [2]. In these situations, states act according to fundamental agreements and principles. The main body of international law governing marine operations and disputes is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [3]. It describes the responsibilities and rights of governments in relation to the use of the ocean. UNCLOS requires governments to respect the rights of other nations and forbids actions that might heighten tensions or endanger peace and security, even if it allows states to conduct military drills inside their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) [4]. Enshrined in international law, the basic concept of freedom of navigation permits military vessels to travel unhindered throughout the world's waters.

States have control over their territorial seas, but they cannot stop other states from exercising their right to legal navigation. Military drills should not interfere with commercial maritime lanes or impede civilian navigation. States are required under the Duty to Avoid Conflict to abstain from acts that might escalate tensions in disputed areas or spark an armed conflict [5]. It is important to use caution when conducting military exercises, especially in disputed seas, to avoid any miscommunication or calculation errors that might lead to hostilities. An example is what occurred on October 2023 when a Chinese J-11 military jet came dangerously close to a United States Air Force B-22 bomber, performing dangerous close proximity maneauvers. Pentagon officials are categorizacing this as reckless, highlighting the potential danger of such a close encounter [6].To avoid misunderstandings, intentions must be communicated clearly and openly. The UNCLOS's emphasis on negotiation and dispute resolution highlights the significance of settling maritime conflicts amicably through processes like arbitration, mediation, or negotiation. States having conflicting maritime rights ought to have earnest discussions to reach settlements that satisfy both parties [7].

Unilateral acts need not jeopardize current discussions or infringe upon the rights of other claimants, nor should they involve military drills. China's military drills may or may not comply with international law based on how well they follow these guidelines. China has faced criticism from neighboring governments and international scrutiny for its exercises, even though it claims they are legitimate and necessary for national security. This criticism comes from recent exercises like Chinese aerial military training which involves daily incursions into Taiwanese airspace, conducting “combat readiness patrols” [8]. Considering that China is a signatory, compliance with the UNCLOS is essential. Although governments are allowed to carry out military operations within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), compliance with the UNCLOS's tenets is essential to protect other coastal states' rights and guarantee freedom of navigation. Freedom of Navigation has been called into question because of China's military actions in disputed waters. A recent incident involving a Chinese Coast Guard vessel which targetted a Phillipine supply boat using water cannons, causing injuries amongst the sailors onboard, this is just one of the actions the Chinese Navy has taken that have lead to dispute [9]

The freedom enjoyed by neighboring countries is threatened by Chinese military actions in disputed areas, targetting commercial freedom and global commerce. China must respect other nations' navigation rights and trade. Intense drills simulate conflict, raising the risk of tensions and potential conflict with neighboring countries. Recent exercises in the region include the live firing of missiles, illegal aerial incursions over neighboring countries and hostility towards commercial vessels in the region [10]. These actions affect countries such as: Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Phillipines, who all share a stake of the South China Sea. To avoid taking any moves that might spark an armed conflict or instability, China must be cautious and restrained. China should give priority to diplomatic efforts and dispute resolution in addition to its military drills [11]. The pursuit of mutually agreeable solutions is hampered by unilateral measures that assert territorial claims without respect for the rights of other claimants. To resolve maritime issues in accordance with international law, communication and discussion with adjacent nations should be given priority.

To sum up, there are significant legal ramifications for China's military drills in disputed areas under international law. These include provisions of the UNCLOS, freedom of navigation, averting conflicts, and resolving disputes. Maintaining regional peace requires adherence to international legal principles and consideration for the rights of other coastal governments. China should help resolve maritime conflicts amicably and reduce the likelihood of military tensions in tdhe area by being open, communicative, and diplomatic.

[1] Staff, Al Jazeera. 2023. “Chinese Navy Holds ‘Confrontational Drills’ in South China Sea.” Al Jazeera, January 16, 2023. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/16/chinese-navy-holds-confrontational-drills-in-south-china-sea.

[2] Agence France-Presse. n.d. “China, US Hold Rival Drills in Disputed South China Sea.” Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/china-us-hold-rival-drills-in-disputed-south-china-sea/.

[3] United Nations. n.d. “Oceans and the Law of the Sea | United Nations.” https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/oceans-and-the-law-of-the-sea.

[4] “Chapter 4: Military Activities in an EEZ – Law of the Sea.” n.d. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-4/.

[5] Fravel, M. Taylor. “Power Shifts and Escalation: Explaining China’s Use of Force in Territorial Disputes.” International Security 32, no. 3 (2007): 44–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30130518.

[6] Online, Et. 2023. “US Military Expresses Concerns Over China’s Reckless Aerial Maneuvers Over South China Sea.” The Economic Times, October 27, 2023. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-b-52-bomber-and-chinese-fighter-jet-came-within-10-feet-of-each-other-over-south-china-sea/articleshow/104743729.cms?from=mdr.

[7] Fearon, James D. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49, no. 3 (1995): 379–414. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706903.

[8] “China Trying to ‘normalise’ Military Drills Near Taiwan: Island’s Top Security Official.” 2024. Reuters. March 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-trying-normalise-military-drills-near-taiwan-islands-top-security-official-2024-03-11/.

[9] Gomez, Jim. 2024. “Chinese Coast Guard Blasts Philippine Boat With Water Cannon in Disputed Sea | AP News.” AP News, March 23, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/south-china-sea-philippines-thomas-shoal-water-cannons-c9f35182db64c098cd47ecbf10f7966e.

[10] NEWS WIRES. 2024. “China and US Hold Rival Military Drills in Disputed South China Sea.” France 24, January 4, 2024. https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20240104-china-and-us-hold-rival-military-drills-in-disputed-south-china-sea.

[11] Unbound, Guest Blogger for Asia. 2021. “Winning the Public Diplomacy Battle in the South China Sea.” Council on Foreign Relations, July 1, 2021. https://www.cfr.org/blog/winning-public-diplomacy-battle-south-china-sea.

March 27th, 2024 

By: Javier Quinones-Casanova 

John F. Kennedy once wisely stated, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us." Today, this quote resonates more than ever. Ongoing geopolitical tensions have become the new norm and possibly a defining aspect of our future. With this backdrop, one question looms large: Could China emerge as the next global military and economic powerhouse? The answer to this question remains uncertain, but in this research paper, we will delve into the historical context of China's rise and its challenge to the United States of America.

What fuels China's ambition? To understand this, we must first explore the Cold War, a prolonged political rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies that persisted after World War II, mainly fought on political, economic, and propaganda fronts and concluded in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union (USSR). With this historical framework in mind, we can explore the origins of the current conflict and how we reached this point.

It all began when Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party assumed control of China, replacing the existing leadership and establishing a Communist nation. The United States recognized the emergence of this new threat, but without provocation, no action was taken. In 1964, the Chinese Communist Party conducted its first atomic bomb test, marking a significant development. In February 1972, President Nixon's visit to Mainland China aimed to address diplomatic issues and negotiate with Mao Zedong regarding Taiwan's sovereignty. Despite these efforts, the China-U.S. relationship remained unchanged until 1989 when the Tiananmen Square Massacre unfolded. This tragic event, where university students in Beijing protested and faced military suppression, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of protesters. In response, the U.S. suspended all military sales to China and froze most relations.

Following the Tiananmen Square incident, Taiwan elected its first president in March 1996, despite China's perceived threat to Taiwanese sovereignty. This decision signaled Taiwan's pro-independence stance. Since then, China has sought to expand its territory, challenging U.S. dominance in the Indo-Pacific region and on the global stage.

China's naval modernization, particularly its activities in the South China Sea, is a significant factor in its quest for dominance. Since 1978, China has transformed its military, focusing on high-technology, joint operations, maritime capabilities, and information domains. This transformation has made the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) a formidable force, conducting various exercises in the Indo-Pacific region. Notably, in 2017, China established its first overseas military base in Djibouti, Africa, marking a major strategic shift.

China's economic expansion is another crucial facet of its global influence. As the world's second-largest economy, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has become a massive platform for investment and infrastructure development across Asia, Europe, and Africa. The BRI's extensive network of projects, including ports, railways, and highways, spans more than 70 countries, with investments exceeding $3 trillion.

However, China's economic expansion carries both benefits and concerns. It stimulates economic growth in developing countries and creates trade and investment opportunities, but it also raises questions about China's intentions, potential debt traps, and dependency on Chinese investments. Environmental concerns, corruption, and transparency issues in bidding processes have also been raised by some nations.

China's military and economic expansion significantly affect global power dynamics, challenging the United States and its allies. China's increasing military capabilities and assertiveness raise concerns about potential conflicts, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States and its allies responded by bolstering their military presence in the region and strengthening alliances. One example of this response is the U.S.'s substantial investments in Southeast Asian nations, aiming to build alliances and counter Chinese influence.

Conclusively, China's military and economic expansion has profound implications for global power dynamics. As it rises as a global superpower, China challenges the dominance of the United States and its allies. While China's economic expansion has opened doors for trade and investment, it also poses concerns about influence and debt traps. China's military expansion raises concerns about potential conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region. The international community must collaborate to address these challenges and promote peaceful coexistence. Potential solutions may be found through organizations like the United Nations, and time will ultimately reveal whether China can achieve dominance, but the odds are not entirely in its favor.

October 19, 2023 

By: Javier Quinones-Casanova 

English?

THE IMPACT THE WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE IS HAVING IN THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. The war between Russia and Ukraine has already had many negative effects, nonetheless one of the most significant for the international community has been the shortage of wheat. Statistics show that around 30% of the worlds wheat is exported from Russia and Ukraine. The fertile grounds around the Black Sea allow for the wheat industry to be a major in the area. Around two (2) weeks ago Ukraine decided to stop the export of wheat to other countries, most likely in an attempt to feed their own population during these times of war. Due to this decision made by the Ukrainian government the world is expected to experience a shortage of wheat. It’s something that will cause a global crisis but will likely cause wheat prices to rise due to unavailability. What are your thoughts? 

Spanish:

EL IMPACTO QUE ESTÁ TENIENDO LA GUERRA ENTRE RUSIA Y UCRANIA EN LA INDUSTRIA AGRÍCOLA.  La guerra entre Rusia y Ucrania ya ha tenido muchos efectos negativos, sin embargo uno de los más significativos para la comunidad internacional ha sido la escasez de trigo.  Las estadísticas muestran que alrededor del 30% del trigo mundial se exporta desde Rusia y Ucrania.  Los terrenos fértiles alrededor del Mar Negro permiten que la industria del trigo sea importante en el área.  Hace alrededor de dos (2) semanas, Ucrania decidió detener la exportación de trigo a otros países, probablemente en un intento de alimentar a su propia población durante estos tiempos de guerra.  Debido a esta decisión tomada por el gobierno ucraniano, se espera que el mundo experimente una escasez de trigo.  Es algo que provocará una crisis global, pero probablemente hará que los precios del trigo suban debido a la falta de disponibilidad. ¿Cuáles son tus pensamientos?

March 31, 2022

 “A report on the rise of school shootings in the US Education System.”

So what were you wanting to tell me?

April 20, 1999… a day in thought, started off to be an average day to anyone in the US Education System but would end up becoming a day filled with tears, hatred, and death. 

Over what feels like millennia, gun violence has been an impending issue in society, and what is being done to resolve it? Well, in many ways it feels like nothing is being done to help heal the wounds of those who have been affected. When I refer to gun violence, I will mainly be discussing it, concerning school shootings, and it’s rise over the past 25 years. 

As previously mentioned; April 20, 1999 - this was the fateful day of what many refer to as one of the worst school shootings ever. This was known as the Columbine School Shooting that occurred in Colorado when two 12th graders opened fire on the seemingly innocent students, which resulted in the murder of 13 — 12 students and 1 teacher. An additional 21 students were injured in the shootout between the police and the perpetrators. 

Overall, there have been many critiques to the overall situation that had occurred, whether that included the slow response of the Police, and them entering the building, or even what arose as a result of this shooting, what is now known as the Immediate Action Rapid Deployment technique - more on this later. 

Although the day this massacre had occurred, and the 13 people had been killed, something that may stand out, and is sometimes overlooked, is the fact that initially, the perpetrators planned to detonate two planted propane bombs that they had planted in separate locations close to the school, fortunately, these explosives had failed, which in part is what lead the perpetrators to go inside the school and begin shooting their victims. In conclusion, there have been multiple ways that this school shooting has changed and set the scene for the way the future has played out. 

Although this massacre was a terrible occurrence, this is merely not the problem at hand, and we must examine why exactly these school shootings continue to occur. 

In a way, each time a school shooting has occurred, and in broad perspective - any shooting that occurs at a given point in time, society vows to change, find solutions to these problems, and seek condolences to those who were directly, and indirectly affected, YET this is simply not the case, each time a shooting occurs - mainly focusing on the perspective of schools - a cycle repeats of seeking the solution to an ever-lasting problem, but 23 years later, since Columbine, not much has changed, and even worse - the problem continues to rage like a wild-fire as the number of school-shooting have skyrocketed, with seemingly no solution in sight. 

An important perspective to consider when revolving around this issue is the way news coverage has also simply changed since times of Columbine, in a present-day 2022, although Columbine is merely now sadly not viewed as one of the worst school shootings in the US Education System - as in recent times there have been more massacres that have taken more lives. The way that news sources tend to portray school shootings, although they may be a “hot topic,” for at maximum a month, many of these news sources simply just give the news, and updates, and yet the news just slithers away yet to be heard from again, unless a major update comes along. This is also a reference to the way a continuous cycle repeats itself, with yet still no change. 

That being said, although there have been some changes in the way these school shootings are dealt with; such as the previously mentioned Immediate Action Rapid Deployment (IARD) technique. In this technique, a rationale is established where although the risk is posed for first-responders where Police must enter a building immediately, rather than negotiating in a typical hostage situation, although not directly proven, has saved lives - as when first-responders enter the building immediately, in the situation of a school shooting, the police can disable the perpetrator faster, rather than wait even merely valuable seconds and risk a potentially higher death-toll. 

Now, examining what exactly is even being done to combat this massive issue, and hopefully lower the number of school shootings that occur; some have suggested the usage of metal-detectors in schools to hopefully notice if a student or perpetrator is to bring a weapon into a school-building. Although this may seem like a simple solution to such a massive problem, this is seemingly not the case, as due to many educational institutions having limited funding, the reality of adding not one, but multiple metal detectors in schools, simply isn’t possible, as enough schools don’t have the proper amount of funding to put this idea to reality. 

Another potential solution that may seem reasonable is for these educational institutions to increase mental-health resources for students, to potentially pick out students who may not be “mentally-well,” in some perspective, a bit controversial as this may be targeting specific people who have no thought of committing such a massacre, but in many ways - it is better to be safe than sorry. Many schools have already implemented this as a potential way to curve this issue of school shootings, but then again, this arises another potential counterargument, that many students and teachers feel that a school is a place that students should feel comfortable, all while being safe - some argue that what arises from this - is the feeling that school merely feels like a prison, rather than an actual school, as previously mentioned - in such sensitive situations, it is sometimes better to be safe than sorry, no matter the cost - assuming it is to plateau the number of school-shootings that are occurring each year. 

Some tend to argue that these school shootings, and their increased rise, may be due to some political intentions in Washington, as no direct governmental-legal action has taken place, this brings up the question of whether the individuals who are representing the citizens of the US are more focused on their political agendas to get themselves re-elected each election, or whether they are focused on finding a solution to this issue at hand. That, however, is a different conversation that is simply straying too far from the original issue at hand. Although, concerning legal issues, and this gun violence, some conversations concerning the limiting of the 2nd Amendment and its efficacy, this conversation has been diminished, as many argue that the 2nd Amendment is what protects the other 26 Amendments, and some say that extending limitations to the 2nd Amendment to curve the number of shootings, may rather be too radical, and is a suppressing of the rights that each US Citizen is given. 

In such a heated topic, although it is important to consider many different possible solutions, and possible viewpoints, in some cases - it is important to consider what may be a better solution to the overall population, rather than a specified group of people. 

In Conclusion, although these school shootings continue to reign over the population, and there is precariously much more to still consider, in a broad perspective, it is agreeable that not enough is being done to curve these massacres, and there is still much more to discuss in relation to this sensitive topic. 

Sources: 

Ortiz, Jorge Usa L. Today. “How to Keep Schools Safe? We’re Focusing Our Time, Energy and Money on ‘all the Wrong Things,’ Experts Say.” USA TODAY, 26 Nov. 2019, eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/21/school-shootings-metal-detectors-solution-experts/4255318002.

Wikipedia contributors. “Immediate Action Rapid Deployment.” Wikipedia, 27 Oct. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_action_rapid_deployment.

Wikipedia contributors. “Columbine High School Massacre.” Wikipedia, 12 Jan. 2022, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre.

History.com Editors. “Columbine Shooting.” HISTORY, 4 Mar. 2021, www.history.com/topics/1990s/columbine-high-school-shootings.

Vigderman, Aliza. “A Timeline of School Shootings Since Columbine.” Security.Org, 9 Aug. 2021, www.security.org/blog/a-timeline-of-school-shootings-since-columbine.

Today we will be talking about Food Shortages in Puerto Rico and the United States. Have you recently been to the Supermarket and noticed the empty shelves or aisles? Well in our case we have noticed it and see that it’s becoming a growing trend across the states. Today we will try to find the Why and How to this problem. Perhaps agree on how we can fix this food shortage and refill all those empty shelves.

Let's define what is a Food Shortage and what are some of the most common causes. Food Shortage: a widespread scarcity of food, caused by several factors including war, inflation, crop failure, population imbalance, or government policies. Now that we possess the definition let’s see what is the most probable cause for the food shortages in the US and Puerto Rico. In our opinion, the reason why we’re currently facing food shortages is government policies and labor shortages.

We have concluded that labor shortages and government policies in the US and Puerto Rico are the main causes for this “famine”. The first and main reason would be food shortages and by this, we don’t mean the unavailability of food or crops but the shortage of truck drivers. While this may sound like a simple reason but it’s a true problem that’s occurring. If there are no truck drivers, there is no other way to transport goods from one part of the country to the other, or from the docks to the cities. Truck Drivers play an essential role in our economy and nation since they are the moving gears in our machine of capitalism. Most definitely I am not complaining about capitalism because it’s been proven to be the most efficient socio-economic system over time but I am suggesting we find another way to ship items or food across our nation that is cheaper and more effective.

These types of advancements do come with a caveat because if we implement autonomous driving trucks or other autonomous modes of transportation the industry would evolve and adopt these technologies. When the industry evolves it would result in the absolute elimination of the “truck driver role“ and create huge rates of unemployment. 

What would you choose? Sticking to the current system or evolution that would cause a large demographic of the US and PR population to become unemployed? 

Send us your thoughts.

Greetings! Today we will be talking to you about the young voters and recent trends occurring in the US political system. I will do my best in explaining the trends in voting and political views for our younger generations and why they tend to vote that way.

If you had some sort of social media during the 2020 US electoral period, you would remember seeing videos, tweets, social media posts, and online articles talking about politics and usually promoting “Biden Harris”. Most of the people or users who posted this type of information were the younger generations and normally liberal college students. During this period I set myself the task of finding out for myself why most of the younger voters planned on becoming a part of the “blue wave”.

After some time asking questions and recollecting my data I concluded that most of these people weren’t voting for Biden because of his policies or political ideals. If not I found out most of these young voters just wanted President Trump out of office. Their case was so extreme they didn’t pay attention to Biden’s proposals or anything, they just cast their “Biden Ballot”. Of course, I don’t blame them completely because I could agree Trump did some incorrect things but I would disagree with the fact they didn’t do any research before their vote was cast. 

Nonetheless, Joe Biden’s campaign was heavily based on equality and on “Building back Better”. These words of building back better would be enough to motivate a regular person to cast their vote in your favor but what else did Biden promise to bring to the table, and why did younger generations appeal to these proposals?

Lets mention some of them:

-Beating COVID-19

-Jobs and Economic Recovery

-Affordable Health Care

-Reward Hard Work

-Support Education and Students

-Support Veterans

-Protect Immigrants

-Tackle Climate Change

-Improve Racial Economic equality

-End Gun violence

-…

After mentioning some of these proposals it sounds like an amazing idea to vote for Biden, the only unknown thing is how exactly is he going to execute and make these proposals a reality? That’s the only part Joe Biden fails to explain. One thing is a plan and another is the action.

Finally, I believe that the reason most of our youth vote for liberal and democratic values is college and media. During the time I’ve spent at college, I’ve seen how most professors tend to push and try to insert liberal values into your mind. I’m not saying this is a negative thing but it’s what I have seen the most. The other important factor is the media that surrounds them. For example, during the 4 years, Trump was president CNN had the highest streams in its history. It is most likely that the spike in their views was due to their political segments in which they critiqued Trump.

I don’t condemn their criticism because we live in a country in which it’s ok to express your beliefs and opinions but I do believe the leftist media had something to do with the outcomes of the 2020 election. That’s the main reason why I try not to listen to any news source belonging specifically to Left or Right. It is to not confuse myself or become biased. I hope the article was of help and allowed you to understand at a further level the decisions of our new generations when it comes to politics and government. Again thanks for your attention and remember that learning never stops.

Recently in the news, a hot topic has been about Abortion. Rather, this isn't necessarily a new heated debate, it's one that has been going on for many years, but has once again come into spotlight. 

Recently, the State of Texas introduced a new law that was signed by Governor Abbott that would prohibit women going through the procedure of an abortion as early as the 6-week mark. A controversial piece in this whole situation is the fact that by the 6-week mark, many women aren't even aware of their pregnancy, and by the time they actually learn they are pregnant, it is legally too late to do something about it, and hence women may face legal consequences if this law is broken. 

This is one of the most controversial laws ever passed since Roe v. Wade, many years ago...

Furthermore, this law has been so controversial, to the point where The US Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit, and sued the state of Texas. 

Now lets see what the typical-Republican viewpoint:

Let’s compare both the conservative side of the spectrum as well as the liberal areas in order to obtain a better perspective and arrive at a conclusion.

Republicans believe that:

-life begins at conception

-the law protects the right for human life

-every human has a different generating composition, therefore no one is genetically the same, so the claim that it’s a part of the woman’s body is false. It’s a different person.

-22 weeks after conception the child’s heart begins to circulate blood 

-10 weeks after conception the child will make bodily movements

-At 6 weeks the child has eyes, eyelids ,nose, mouth, tongue and more, which prove it’s a different person from the mother, she doesn’t have 2 tongues.

-only 13 percent of the US population believes that abortion should be legal in last weeks before birth

-the organization Feminists United claimed that we should protect women even if they are still inside their mothers womb (hinting it’s a different woman inside the womb. 

Nonetheless, personally I try to stay away in personal involvement with such topics, as they prove to be very controversial, and sometimes quite sensitive, depending on the type of audience. It's hard to really get involved, and be an active-voice in these types of topics, without in some ways saying something that isn't going to be conveyed in a offensive way. 

Hello! Today we will be talking a little about the 2nd Amendment Right in the US and if it should be abolished or should be left in effect. The question of the day is: Are guns necessary in civilian hands and if so what’s their purpose?

As always I will start off by defining some key concepts for this article to help you further understand the legal, historical and social aspects behind the Second Amendment in our constitution. So what is the Constitution?  The Constitution of the United States established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens.  It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. As we know, during the 1700‘s Colonial America was fighting a Monarchy and to a certain extent “running away” from strict rules and laws. The “Founding Fathers” had the goal to create a nation in which there would be equality and freedom for all. At the time they were making some incredible advances but the only part where they lacked was the freedom for all because they still had slave labor, let’s talk about that in another blog.

The thing is that in 1700’s Americans had to fight for their liberty and combat the “redcoat“ British soldiers. Since the “New Nation” hadn’t been born they did not have a well established military. The US government wanted citizens to possess firearms in case the British attempted an invasion. This history shows us worked for them. During the Revolutionary War Americans were armed and allowed them to create militias to fend off the British invaders. This victory led them to the creation of the second amendment and the right for Americans to “bear arms”.

Today we find ourselves in the twenty first century and we ask ourselves if the right to own arms should be abolished? In my opinion I believe we should keep this amendment since it has worked out for us in the 20th century. An example would be World War two. This war comes to mind because our second amendment right was what kept us from being invaded by the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is claimed by some to have said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States.There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." If our 2nd amendment right would have been abolished at the time what would’ve happened to our nation and what would have the world looked like?

Some might say were no longer in WW2, all I have to counter argue that is: “We’re in a New Cold War and we must defend ourselves”.

Apart from the military aspect of the second amendment I’ve seen gun violence in the US erupting. This is not because of gun control laws, in most cases the guns found in the streets and used for crime are unregistere. This means they enter illegally into the US and are obviously sold illegally. Since the case we are facing is due to illegal weapons we should not ban nor abolish the second amendment and punish those who have their weapons in a legal and safe manner.

Thank you for your attention and have a great day! Remember to follow us on social media and leave a like. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss this topic leave us a message.

Sunday October 24,2021

Welcome to another blog about Puerto Rican Politics. If you have reas any other articles from our page you have noticed that we try to be as unbiased as possible, in order to bring you the facts. No matter how hard we try there will always be some sort of bias but let’s talk about Puerto Rico’s independence and if it’s something posible and something that could benefit the island.

As always let’s start off by defining some keywords that will allow us to further understand the topic of this blog and some of the history behind this political situation. What is a colony? A colony is a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country. In my opinion I wouldn’t call Puerto Rico a colony just by one reason, we are not geographically distant from our “Colonizers”. A colony by definition requires the colonized land to be far away from the colonizers mainland and Puerto Rico does not mean this criteria since we’re at 2678 miles from Continental US. Nonetheless if we eliminate this criteria, Puerto Rico 🇵🇷 would qualify as a Colony. The modern term for colony is territory and as an American territory we share federal laws, same type of government, similar taxes and more. The only aspects we don’t share that come to mind right now are:

-voting on presidential election

-no representation in American Congress

These two aspects determine why many Puerto Ricans are rooting for independence. It’s as if history represas itself, one of the reasons why Americans in the 1700‘s hated the British is because they had no fair representation in the House of Commons. Since Americans did not have a say in the laws and taxes that were put upon them, they decided to fight for their liberty.

The things going on in Puerto Rico are quite similar as you can see. On contrary with the 13 colonies Puerto Rico has a commissioner resident in Washington. This is an elect official that is Puerto Rican, that is given the job of “representing Puerto Rico” to a certain extent. They do not have a vote nor say but can express their opinions and the desires of the Puerto Rican population. If you think about it, this isn’t much of representation therefore we would basically be in the same mindset as the founding fathers and residents of the 13 colonies. This alone would give Puerto Ricans the “reason” to fight for their independence and perhaps achieve it.

In my opinion I am against Puerto Rico’s independence, because of some economic and social factors that would be implemented if we were to become independent. Some of these factors include:

-socialism

-economic imbalance

-shortage of labor

-government corruption

-and more…

If you wish I can further explain why I disagree with Puerto Rico’s independence in the future but let’s stick to the current topic for this blog.

So lets see some information about Puerto Rico’s fight for independence:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_movement_in_Puerto_Rico

I know this is a Wikipedia article but I have read through it and believe it to be an exact timeline of Puerto Rico’s fight for independence. If I were to explain all those aspects and details here, this blog would become too long and monotone.

-Younger Generations and Their Effects

As I have mentioned in previous articles, the young voters have a great impact in a countries politics and the overall outcome of a nation. Puerto Rico has been heavily influenced by independence and liberty and mostly due to protests and other manifestations by college students. Colleges tend to be liberal places in which students are instilled the values of liberty and liberalism which of course isn’t bad. 

In my opinion I believe that what is currently preventing Puerto Rico from obtaining it’s liberty are the older generations. Since they mostly search for stability and the younger generations seek new things. As I mentioned before I hope Puerto Rico can continue being an American Territory and that we can all economically grow as a nation.

Thank you for your attention and have a great day! Remember to like our posts and leave any questions or doubts in the message Ivón of our website.

Sunday October 24, 2021

Illegal Immigration, what is it? What are the laws that make immigration Illegal? Should the US border be secured? These are the questions that Americans are asking themselves, it’s a very controversial topic and very sensitive in the eyes of immigrants and left wing citizens. Lets discuss and see the facts behind illegal immigration and determine if the border should be left open or if the US should have stricter border control.

Illegal immigration refers to the migration of people into a country in violation of the immigration laws of that country, or the continued residence without the legal right to live in that country. Illegal immigration tends to be financially upward, from poorer to richer countries. So what “problem” does the US face when it comes to immigration and from where do most immigrants come? Turns out it’s not an actual problem, since most likely this is rooted in racism. In most occasions immigrants that travel to the North American border come from South America and Central America. Especially in the South of the US also known as the “Sun Belt” where racism and slavery had a huge role on the society. Happens to be the area where most illegal immigrants enter the nation. 

Nonetheless, not everyone who supports legal immigration is racist. This may sound contradictory to what was mentioned in the paragraph above, but the important part is to give both sides of the story and explain the reasons. I believe that not all supporters of legal immigration are racist because they also have their valid point to share. I’ll list some of them done below: 

1. Humanitarian parole: Waive entry restrictions for Central Americans in the backlogged green card lines and with family legally in the United States.

2. Private refugee sponsorship: Allow U.S. residents and organizations to sponsor refugees from abroad as the State Department had planned in 2016.

3. Guest worker expansion: Expand the H-2A and H-2B seasonal worker programs to year‐​round jobs for Central Americans and waive the H-2B cap.

4. Legalization: Legalize illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal convictions and let them reunite with their spouses and children, eliminating the network for future illegal immigration.

5. Processing at ports: Remove the cap on asylum seekers at ports of entry, process 100 percent of their claims there, and release them with an employment authorization document contingent on them appearing in court.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/legal-immigration-will-resolve-americas-real-border-problems

6. Better Security inside the US: To prevent further immigration of Drug Cartel memebers and other people who are involved in other illegal activities, we should strengthen our border because these people are a threat to the American population. 

8. Better Benefits for Immigrants: When immigrants enter the nation legally they most likely will qualify for government help and other stipends that will make their transition easier. 

Most definitely there exist more arguments and better explained than those above but these are some of the most commonly used by “Strong Border” supporters As seen before we will also examine the more “liberal” side of the debate and mention some of their reasons why they believe we should have an open border. 

I. The Humanistic Argument: One Race, One World 

II. The Responsibility Argument: Why Punish the Migrant? 

III. The Historical Argument: Borders Are Past Violence Congealed 

IV. The Internationalist Argument: Borders Promote Nationalism and Warfare 

V. The Inequality Argument: Borders Reinforce Inequalities on a Global Scale 

VI. The Race Argument: Borders Keep People of Color Out of White Peoples’ Countries

VII. The Feminization of Poverty Argument: Borders Contribute to the Increasing Poverty of Women 

VIII. The State versus Society Argument: To Defend the Border You Must Expand the Power of the State 

IX. The Economic Power Argument: Open Borders Build International Solidarity 

X. The Workers of the World Argument

Having mentioned arguments from both sides of this debate, I will try to explain my opinion about the matter and I hope you can send me your opinions through the @novanews76. 

Finally, my opinion is that we should have a “Safe Border”, what I mean by this is that we should defend our Border and prohibit the access of people with serious criminal records into the country. This is because we should have in mind the safety of our citizens but at the same time having sympathy for those who are in times of struggle. I do believe in the legal immigration process and I also am of the opinion that some “updates” should be made to the law and whole immigration process in America. We should work towards having a faster immigration process because if a process takes too long to complete, people in a desperate situation will not hesitate to “jump the border”. We should optimize our Border services and be humane with the people who seek asylum. We should treat every human with the respect the deserve but also by applying the law. 

In some cases when people become too sensitive things fall apart and this should not be our case. We must have countrol over our border but in a fair and even way, not deporting everyone just because of race. It’s all about being fair and just. I’m not certain if I explained properly because my views are mainly “Safe Border” but I do believe in equality. Overall it’s about having a safer nation and giving the opportunity of citizenship to those who really need it.

Thursday October 28, 2021

Is housing a human right? How are current home prices affecting the middle and lower class in the US? In this article we will analyze the housing crisis in America and attempt to find a solution to this issue. To kick off lets define some key concepts so we can immerse ourselves fully in this topic. 

What is a Real-Estate Bubble? A real-estate bubble or property bubble is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real-estate markets, and typically follow a land boom. So what is a land boom? A land boom is the rapid increase in the market price of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels and then decline. If we take a look into our current housing situation we can see a land boom and a real-estate bubble “about to burst”. 

Let’s use as an example to housing crisis in the state of California. Statistics show that around 161,000 Californians were homeless in the year of 2017. Most likely this number has seen a drastic increase because of the pandemic and because the state government has taken 0 action to combat this crisis. The estimated current number is 554,000 homeless Americans in the streets of California. Does the government have any effect on the current housing crisis? The simple answer is yes, we can see this because especially in this state the lack of public housing is evident. This seems strange since California has been a historically liberal state. This is the party we see that “Fights for Equality” and social Justice. Nonetheless their governor has done nothing regarding this issue. 

By examining the 2020 Democratic Party Platform we can see the exact standards that should be held for a Democrat candidate apart from their visions for an ideal America. Throughout it’s content we can find the word housing more than 100 times, which by itself means the importance of housing in the Democratic Party in California. They saw verbatim: “Housing in America should be stable, accesible, safe, healthy, energy efficient and above all, affordable”. This statement most certainly should be a goal for all political parties but the reality is that they are not implementing their plan nor or the citizens. 

Recently in California i saw an issue that caught my eye, it was a protest by an affluent community in which they were fighting for equal housing opportunity for every American citizen and every person who lives in California. The city council responded to their protest by recommending the construction of a public housing building in their wealth community in hopes of providing the homeless a cheap option for housing. Turns out the residents in that wealthy neighborhood rejected the proposal for the Public Housing building in their town. These residents in California (who were democrat by the way) showed how selfish one can be regardless of political affiliation. They denied an opportunity for affordable housing just so their property prices wouldn’t see a decrease. From a certain view point I don’t understand their decision but it’s cruel to a certain extent to deny affordable housing just because of your properties value. 

Another issue regarding the state of California is the unavailability of plots of land near urban areas. Like in every other state, most people like to reside near urban areas due to the fact most employments are situated in that área. As we know California is one of the largest states in the nation, nonetheless most citizens prefer to live near LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Santa Bárbara, etc. One other reason to why there is a housing crisis in for example California is due to the lack of Duplexes and apartment complexes. According to statistics, two thirds of homes in California are single family houses. Most homes single family houses can accommodate 4 people which is an extremely low number. I consider that in the plots of land where a single family home can be built the government or other housing companies should be constructing duplexes or small apartment complexes in order to accommodate a larger number of families and citizens and prevent them from ending up in the streets. 

The third factor that causes homelessness is steep costs of homes. According to Zillow the famous online real-estate company, a average Home in California is valued at $717,854. With these prices it would be almost impossible for an average family to afford a home, with the average $50,641. In a future article we will discuss the wages in America and if they are considered fair, nonetheless let’s stick to the topic. 

The solution for the issue is found in the law and is up to California’s Legislative branch. Members from the upper house and lower house can come to an agreement in which they sign an proposal suggesting or prioritizing the construction of duplexes or apartments near the surroundings of urban areas. This can be public housing with the purpose of lowering the cost of housing in the state and attempt to lower the homelessness trend in California. I know this is not an easy task but I’m certain that it is possible, most definitely it will require money and the disposition of the legislature in California but at the end of the day, it’s in order to benefit their citizens. As elect officials, their top priority should be the well being of their states population. Certainly there are many other ways to solve this housing crisis but I believe that government and citizens have the power to fix and find a good solution for their crisis. As Abraham Lincoln once said: “Union is Strength”. 

Friday November 12, 2021

Greetings! Today I brought the topic of Conventional Plastics and if they should be banned immediately. As always my goal is to help you further understand different topics ranging from politics to economics.

As always we are going to start today’s article by defining some key concepts so we can immerse ourselves deeper into this topic without doubts nor misunderstandings. So what is Conventional Plastic? Conventional Plastics are typically organic polymers of high molecular mass, but they often contain other substances. ... They are usually synthetic, most commonly derived from petrochemicals, but many are partially natural. Now let’s define what petrochemicals: Petrochemicals are the chemical products obtained from petroleum by refining. Some chemical compounds made from petroleum are also obtained from other fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. 

Now that we have defined these concepts let’s move on to why these conventional plastics are dangerous for our planet Earth. As we have already seen by the definitions above,  petrochemicals and plastics are quite harmful for our environment. The main use for petrochemicals in the world is the creation of plastics and for automotive use. When these petrochemicals are “burned” they slowly damage the Earths Ozone and the oxygen we breath on a daily. About 1.446 billion vehicles roam the Earth. A large percent of these vehicles are actually functional and emit these dangerous gases everyday. By meriting these gases we could say that we‘re shortening the Life of Mother Earth. In my opinion this needs to be changed as soon as possible, because the gases vehicles emit could be the cause for the mass extinction of the human race. I know this sounds dramatic but it’s the real situation we are currently going through.

Some might say that the use of petroleum and other petrochemicals should be banned immediately. Sincerely I couldn’t agree more, after all it’s because of some rich and powerful people who rely on the “gas“ business. If the petrochemical industry becomes obsolete and has no demand they would fall from their economic status and power.

We should not allow these things to stop our innovation and aspirations for a cleaner and safer planet Earth.

Let’s move on to Conventional Plastics and the harm they cause to our environment. As per usual I will start with stats and some basic info about plastic pollution. To kick it off let’s mention that there are 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic wasteestimated to be in our oceans. 269,000 tons float, 4 billion microfibers per km² dwell below the surface. 70% of our debris sinks into the ocean's ecosystem, 15% floats, and 15% lands on our beaches. In terms of plastic, 8.3 million tons are discarded in the sea yearly. 

All this plastic ends up in our oceans or rivers. Sometimes these plastics end up in the side of the road and when wild animals walk by, they might confuse the plastic for food and by eating the plastics they will likely die. We should be more considerate of how we dispose of our garbage in order to prevent the deaths of innocent animals.

By banning the use of conventional we wouldn’t not eliminate the problem instantanously because we’re already too deep in this mess but it will prevent further contamination of our Planet. 

-How can you take action?

Action in this situation starts with innovation, one great example of how you can innovate is creating your own bioplastics or other substitutes for conventional plastics. For example, last year I decided to participate in my schools science fair. With this task I decided to do something innovative and creative, I arrived at the conclusion that creating a new bioplastic would be the way to go. Therefore I decided to create a new material or bioplastic from plantain peels. Since plantain peels are a 100% organic material, their decomposition is rather quick and does not produce a negative effect on our environment. With this bioplastic I created spoons which would allow me to eliminate the use of conventional plastic spoons.

In the future I hope to continue innovating and creating new materials in order to help our planet and I hope this article has inspired you to take a step forward and innovate, in order to create a better world.

As always Thank You for your attention! Remember to like our posts and if you have a comment or question send it to us with the links provided in our website.

Sunday October 24, 2021