Climate Clock in NYC: The Next Seven Years Could Decide Our Future

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

by Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

“The Earth has a deadline” followed by the numeric “7:103:15:40:07” can now be seen flashing a rhythmic countdown on the glass exterior of One Union Square South on 14th Street in New York City. The clock currently reads that there are seven years, 103 days, 15 hours, 40 minutes and seven seconds left to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. 

The idea of the end of the world is not restricted to sci-fi books and films anymore, but many refuse to accept this reality. The Metronome, a public art project that has been in existence for more than 20 years, has now been turned into the Climate Clock, a graphic displaying the amount of time remaining for us to take significant action toward saving our planet. The transformation of the 62-foot-wide 15-digit electronic clock into a climate clock was done by artists Andrew Boyd and Gan Golan and commissioned by the Related Companies in collaboration with the Public Art Fund and the Municipal Art Society. The clock shows we only have seven years whereas many corporations, governments and international organizations such as the U.N. have pledged to adapt sustainability and development goals to alter their environment-degrading activities by 2030. y 

On a YouTube talk show hosted by comedian Ted Alexandro, Boyd said, “It’s a very harsh timeline to reckon with. There’s different ways to slice the numbers and if we can get to net zero carbon in that amount of time, that gives us a 67 percent chance of staying under the red line that scientists are telling us we really shouldn’t cross of 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer.” 

The artists reject the idea that this is a doomsday clock. “It is showing our time window for action,” Goland said. “This is the best period of time we have to really make a difference.”

The installation has been praised but also criticized for its focus on individuals rather than the corporations that are responsible for the majority of environmental degradation causing climate change. Either way, the Metronome clock has been given a new life, one that dismisses any arguments against the existence of climate change and its importance. It is now viewed not only by passersby but people around the world.

COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and How They Work

Graphic by Trinity Kendrick ‘21

Graphic by Trinity Kendrick ‘21

By Lily Cao ’22

Staff Writer

Pharmaceutical companies around the world are working to develop vaccines against the novel coronavirus in an effort to alleviate the burdens brought by the global pandemic.

The development of vaccines is a lengthy process. Before a vaccine gets to clinical trials, it must undergo various stages of testing to guarantee its effectiveness. During the preclinical testing stage, the vaccine is given to animals to see whether it elicits an immune response. Once the vaccine has been proven to elicit an immune response in animals, it is administered to a small group of people, then hundreds, then thousands, during Phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials, respectively. If the vaccine passes all three trials, regulators then authorize the licensing of the vaccine for public use.

Currently, over 90 COVID-19 vaccines worldwide are in the preclinical testing stage, and 44 are in various phases of clinical trials. However, not every vaccine in development will pass all three trials and arrive at the final approval stage.

The Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna Therapeutics, in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health, has been the frontrunner in coronavirus vaccine development. Its technology is based on injecting viral mRNA into the body. The idea behind this is that the genetic information encoded in the RNA will be translated into protein, subsequently triggering an immune response. Compared to DNA-based vaccines, RNA-based ones are safer, as they pose no risk of altering the person’s natural DNA sequence. RNA vaccines are also less expensive and take less time to produce than traditional vaccines, making them a favorable solution to a rapidly evolving global pandemic like the novel coronavirus. 

If Moderna’s candidate gets approved, it would be the first mRNA-based vaccine to be used on humans. Moderna’s vaccine entered Phase 3 of clinical trials on July 27. It will enroll 30,000 participants from across the U.S. in its final round of testing.

Janssen Pharmaceutica of Johnson and Johnson is investigating the non-replicating viral vector vaccine in which a portion of the coronavirus DNA is introduced into the adenovirus vector, which serves as the vehicle to deliver genetic material into the human body and trigger immune responses. The adenovirus is known to cause the common cold; however, when used in vaccines, the virus is genetically modified so that it will not harm the vaccine recipient. The company launched its Phase 3 trial in collaboration with Operation Warp Speed in September, enrolling 60,000 volunteers worldwide.

Maryland-based biotech company Novavax is known for its efforts in combating infectious diseases using innovative vaccines. Its coronavirus vaccine candidate, NVX-CoV2373, was genetically engineered using its recombinant nanoparticle technology to produce the coronavirus spike protein-derived antigen. The candidate contains Novavax’s proprietary saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant, which has been shown to augment immune responses. The vaccine works by allowing the antibodies generated to block the binding of the spike protein to receptors on human bodies, thereby stopping the virus from infecting and further replicating in the vaccine recipient. Because Novavax’s vaccine development method is based on traditional vaccine technology, some experts argue that its candidate shows promise, since the world has had experience with this vaccine development method before, unlike the mRNA-based vaccines other companies are developing. Novavax’s Phase 3 trial in the U.K. hopes to enroll up to 10,000 participants ranging from 18 to 84 years old.

However, health care officials warn the public that even if the vaccines get approved soon, there is going to be a lag before their distribution. Moreover, not everybody will want to get vaccinated, and not everybody receiving the vaccine will produce an effective immune response. Therefore, people should still take serious safety precautions like washing their hands, keeping socially distanced and wearing masks.

Weekly Climate News

October 1, 2020

  • Land grabbers in the Amazon’s Indigenous territories advanced after encouragement from Bolsonaro. 

  • Eight new projects have been funded by NASA that explore the connections between the environment and COVID-19. 

  • Over one-third of food in the U.S. is either lost or wasted, which equates to about $161 billion annually, and this problem has been exacerbated by the global pandemic. Read this article about how to reduce food waste. 

  • The Trump administration released a plan to open the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the largest U.S. national forest, to logging. 

  • As summers in the Arctic are warming due to climate change, northernmost landscapes are changing, becoming greener with increased plant growth.

  • Recent research papers claim that a new compact nuclear fusion reactor is “very likely to work.” This suggests that producing energy in the same way the sun does might be achievable.

  • A digital clock in Manhattan now shows the time left for critical action to be taken before the effects of global warming become irreversible.

  • Under the COVID-19 lockdown, India experienced its longest recorded period of clean air. This came to an end in September resulting primarily from New Delhi, as the burning of crop waste by farmers caused a deterioration in air quality. 


Indigenous Land Management Practices Are Essential To a Healed Environment

Indigenous land management practices are essential to a healed environment .jpg

By Catelyn Fitgerald ’23

Staff Writer

As wildfires raging across the West Coast have become increasingly common, some states have taken stock of wildfire management practices to determine how to address the threat of major fires. Recent struggles to properly prevent and manage wildfires come as no surprise to Indigenous peoples, whose land management practices were disrupted centuries ago by colonization. 

Native Americans living in what today is California used to uphold a tedious burning regimen where small, controlled fires would be lit to encourage the growth of specific plants. One such tribe is the Karuk Tribe of California, who use knowledge of weather patterns and the local climate to determine when and where to light fires while posing minimal risk to vulnerable habitats and species. Plants that benefit from regular burning are often important elements of Indigenous life and culture. The North Fork Mono Tribe, for example, uses sumac branches as basket weaving material, and the burning of these plants encourages the growth of straight, flexible branches which are ideal for the craft. Reduced vegetation also leads to greater hunting success, as prey are able to move freely through the forest and are more visible to hunters. 

Not only do burns serve practical purposes for Indigenous life, they are also key to the preservation of healthy ecosystems. Regular fires improve soil quality and are a part of the life cycles of some plants for which fire is a key facilitator of reproduction processes such as spore distribution. Cultural burning represents an important part of Indigenous philosophy, which is that humans are a part of how an ecosystem functions and cycles. It follows that the human relationship with the environment should enhance the ecosystems that it benefits from, rather than simply extracting resources from the environment without replenishment. 

Cultural burning was a key part of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and their environment until colonizers arrived and brought with them an impression of fire as an evil entity and a regimen of fire suppression methods. In 1850, cultural burns were criminalized. When controlled burns no longer occurred at the same rate that they once had, flammable plant matter built up throughout forests in the West, causing fires to have the potential to grow quickly and cause extreme damage. Climate change adds to the favorable conditions for large fires as it worsens droughts and causes weather patterns that facilitate the spread of fires. Today, the use of fire suppression remains predominant in land management, but techniques used to fight wildfires, such as the digging of firelines or aerial dispersal of fire retardant, can pollute water resources and permanently alter physical environments. 

As wildfires have grown more intense in recent years, government officials have begun to listen to Indigenous leaders and give tribes increased authority and space to engage in controlled burning. California has recently set a goal to reduce excess vegetation in 500,000 acres of forest, and several tribes are partnering with the U.S. Forest Service and land managers to achieve this through controlled burning. However, there are still barriers to cultural burning practices, as the necessary permits for burning may still be denied on the basis of air quality and liability concerns. Controlled burning also poses greater risks than it did when it was a common practice centuries ago, due to the buildup of plant matter during the practice’s cessation, which makes even small burns potentially harder to control.

Similar efforts by Indigenous peoples to increase cultural burning are gaining traction in Australia. Australia’s 2019-2020 bushfire season began earlier and was more destructive than it had been in past years. By early 2020, 46 million acres had burned, and an estimated three billion animals were killed or displaced during the span of the fires, many of which were endangered species. Indigenous communities were also affected by the fires, facing the loss of homes, community buildings and extensive damage to local ecosystems. 

The history of Indigenous land management in Australia is similar to that of the U.S. Burning  was commonplace among Indigenous people for thousands of years until it was slowly eradicated following Australia’s colonization in 1788. 

While controlled burning is practiced in Australia today, contemporary methods are considered to be ineffective and Indigenous leaders are urging the government to allow them to restore their burning practices and engage in full-time land management. Recently, the New South Wales government formally accepted a recommendation to increase the use of cultural burns in fire prevention and published a report explaining its benefits. 

As climate change is making extreme weather and natural disasters a reality around the world, national governments are beginning to listen to the urging of Indigenous leaders to incorporate cultural burns and other traditional practices into land management. A healed environment necessitates a reciprocal relationship between humans and the environment, and restoring land management practices is just one step towards the acknowledgment that resources must be cared for rather than exploited. Indigenous land management demands that we ask ourselves what we can do to support the plants, animals and ecosystems that support us.

Nasa’s New Tools Could Help Track Forest Fires

NASA’s new tools could help track forest fires.jpg

by Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Forest fires have become the most prevalent environmental disaster in both North and South America in recent years. Forest fires on the West Coast of the United States and in the Amazon in Brazil have engulfed acres of flora- and fauna-filled land, illustrating the urgent need for a solution. NASA, along with researchers from the University of California Irvine, has observed this phenomenon and developed a new set of fire analysis tools. The Amazon Dashboard fire monitoring tool will help governments, scientists and other parties decipher the types of fires burning, why they are burning and the chances that they will damage rainforests. 

The NASA-developed tool is satellite-driven, web-based and can almost instantly categorize fires as one of the following: deforestation, understory fire, small clearing and agricultural fire or savanna/grassland fire. Made available Aug. 19, 2020, it has been deemed useful in not only spotting fires, but also encouraging governments to enforce policies and observe their effectiveness on controlling fires. 

In July 2020, the government of Brazil announced a 120-day ban on intentionally setting fires in the Amazon. However, the fire analysis tool indicated there was an increase in fires in deforestation hotspots. The primary cause of these fires was not small farmers using methods like slash-and-burn farming, but rather giant blazes raging over large patches of deforested land.

Researchers have found that increased deforestation in the Amazon coupled with rising temperatures leaves behind dry and highly flammable wood. The majority of deforestation fires are intentionally started as part of a larger process to convert forest lands into use for ranching and agricultural activities. Fires starting in these areas spread further as understory fires by burning the leaf litter and other flammable materials on the forest floor of standing Amazon rainforests. This affects the most vulnerable parts of the rainforest that are not generally used to these fires, thus causing long-term damage. Understory fires could be harder to locate and, thus, spread to large areas. However, tools such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer are now being used by researchers to get satellite images through which they can spot increased smoke activity and other indicators of deforestation fires. 

Environmental degradation due to prioritizing economic activity in the Amazon has resulted in damage that could be permanent. Technology has provided ways to better understand the sources of fires, but it has also been used to show that the root causes are being ignored. 

Links Between Fossil Fuel Companies and Police Groups

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

A new wave of investigations by the watchdog network LittleSis has revealed that major fossil fuel corporations are responsible for funding police groups in several cities. Corporate giants like Chevron and Exelon are official sponsors for police foundations — entities that provide grants to local police departments and innovate policing through new technology. The funds provided add to the 20-45 percent of municipal discretionary funding that already exists, ranging from $160 million to $5 billion annually.

Chevron is a corporate sponsor for the New Orleans Police Department and also has a position on the board of the Houston Police Foundation. The energy provider Exelon is a notable backer of police foundations in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington.

Wall Street firms that are the top financiers of fossil fuels are also inextricably linked to police foundations. JPMorgan, Chase, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs have all collectively donated millions of dollars to the police.

Since police foundations are nonprofit bodies and the money is raised through galas or benefits, the gargantuan donations they receive often avoid public scrutiny. Reports from the New York Police Foundation state that it raised roughly $5.5 million from its 2019 annual benefit, the deep-pocketed donors including Goldman Sachs and Blackrock, among others. 

Companies which thrive only through extraction and exploitation are openly weaponizing the police and garnering their support in order to protect their interests in the face of community opposition and environmentalists. Oil and gas companies are disproportionately located in minority communities, which contributes to environmental racism. These areas are often overly policed with little surveillance, creating a dangerous intersection of environmental destruction and racism. 

Demographically, Black, brown and low income communities are disproportionately exposed to toxic wastes and pollutants released by petrochemical facilities, smelters, refineries and waste incinerators. Fatemeh Shafiei, director of Environmental Studies at Spelman College, has found evidence to confirm the adverse effects of living in proximity to such facilities. 

Joanne Kilgour, director of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, told Pittsburgh’s radio station WESA that drilling for oil is primarily done in low-income neighborhoods because residents cannot afford the legal counsel paramount to combating drilling plans. Kilgour also called these neighborhoods the “front lines” of environmental justice.

For the smooth operation of their industries and to eliminate opponents, oil and gas companies have joined hands in support of conservative legislation that seeks to criminalize pipeline protests. Since 2017, several bills have been put forward in at least 18 U.S. states. Texas, the largest oil producing state (4,637,000 barrels produced every day), recently passed a pipeline protest law that came into effect on Sept. 1, 2019. According to this, an activist having “intent to damage or destroy” a pipeline facility or even trespass a “critical infrastructure” can face a third-degree felony charge, equivalent to that of attempted murder. Similarly, any organization having similar intentions is liable to be fined up to $500,000. 

Enraged activists are pushing for action plans to stop this environmental racism as individuals and in groups. They believe that, to change this situation, a change in white supremacacist ideals in both policing and pollution is required. “The road to solving the climate crisis includes addressing connected predatory systems,” Tamara Toles O’Laughlin, the North America director of the collective 350.org, told the Guardian. Stop The Money Pipeline, a collective of over 130 climate, Indigenous and social justice organizations was launched in January 2020. Their recent campaigns target Wall Street and the fossil fuel corporate giants backed by them, and their demands ring of only one message: to halt investment in climate destruction and racial injustice.  

Shining a Light on the Plastic Industry

Shining a light on the plastic industry.jpg

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

Plastic is both a central part of our society and a suffocating pollutant to the earth. Almost anything we buy comes wrapped in plastic, we bag our food in plastic and we wear variations of plastic. Not only does plastic end up littering our oceans and neighborhoods, but over 99 percent of it is made from chemicals derived from harmful fossil fuels. By 2015, over 8.3 billion tons of plastic had been produced, roughly equivalent to the weight of one billion elephants or 80 million blue whales. While this commodity has widespread use, there is little public knowledge about where our plastic goes when we toss it. 

We have all been taught the environmentalist slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle.” This slogan is often accompanied by the calming implication that by throwing your plastic water bottle in a recycling bin, you are helping save Mother Earth. However, in 2014, at the peak of annual recycling in the U.S., only 9.5 percent of plastic was actually recycled. Recent investigations by NPR and the PBS series “Frontline” reported that America’s largest oil and gas companies have known all along that recycling plastic would never be a viable alternative to dumping it in landfills. NPR and “Frontline” detailed that, in a 1974 speech, an unnamed industry insider wrote, “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.” 

While big oil and gas executives learned of the improbability of recycling on a large scale, commercials still aired across the country that, according to NPR, carried the message of “Plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it.” These commercials were paid for by the same oil and gas companies that knew the industry was doomed to fail, such as Exxon, Chevron, Dow and DuPont. 

For a while, the U.S. was able to hide its growing plastic problem and ineffective recycling programs by dumping plastic waste in other countries, primarily China. But in 2017, China announced a national policy called National Sword to halt the import of recyclable waste from other countries. The U.S. was then forced to reckon with its own plastic addiction. According to The Intercept, after the implementation of National Sword, the U.S. started burning “six times the amount of plastic it’s recycling,” which, in turn, emits toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, including black carbon, which contributes to climate change.  

Other countries, such as Kenya, have implemented groundbreaking plastic bans, looking to limit the polluter. However, the U.S. oil and gas companies have tried to sully these efforts as well. According to a New York Times report, U.S. fossil fuel companies are attempting to lobby Kenya to reverse its plastic ban and continue importing foreign plastic waste. The battle is now between environmentalists in Kenya, the U.S. and abroad and the fossil fuel lobbyists who are backed by the hundred billion dollar industry.

While it is important to limit personal plastic use and continue to recycle plastics when possible, the issue of plastics extends beyond that. The towering oil and gas industry has held environmentalism hostage for decades with the goal of producing plastic, profits and waste.

Weekly Climate News

September 24, 2020

  • China recently announced a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, a significant step forward for global climate action. 

  • The U.K. is currently developing plans on climate action before U.N. climate talks to be held in Glasgow during the first two weeks of November, but has been challenged by a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. 

  • Forest clearance in Indonesia has spiked during the global pandemic as travel restrictions have stopped environmental law enforcement. 

  • Arctic sea ice reaches second-lowest ice coverage ever recorded, higher only than measurements from 2012. 

  • 1 percent of the world is currently living in hot zones and by 2070, that could increase to 19 percent. Read this article about what this means for the population through an exploration of climate migration.  

  • Some U.S. cities are planning “green recoveries” after COVID-19. Read about it here. 

  • A newly released book on climate titled “All We can Save” highlights women climate leaders and offers solutions and encouragement. 

  • A new data tool by NASA provides near real-time monitoring of forest fires and could  completely change the maintenance of blazes, particularly in the Amazon. 

  • BP and other European oil companies have invested billions in the renewable energy sector, while many U.S. companies like Exxon and Chevron commit to fossil fuels. Read this article on why these companies have chosen divergent stances on climate change.