Pharmaceutical Companies Release Coronavirus Vaccine Updates

By Lily Cao ’21

Staff Writer

As COVID-19 levels spike across the globe, many places around the world are heading into another round of lockdowns. Along with this growing second wave come announcements from companies working on possible coronavirus vaccinations. 

On Nov. 9, American pharmaceutical corporation Pfizer Inc. and German biotechnology company BioNTech SE shared that their mRNA-based vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, has shown record-breaking early results with over 90 percent efficacy against COVID-19. This finding from Phase 3 of their clinical trial was the first interim efficacy analysis, which tests the vaccine’s effectiveness under ideal circumstances. The vaccine was given in two doses with results collected seven days after the second dose. Even though it is unclear how strong the elicited immune response is and how long it will last in human bodies, this achievement marks a milestone in the vaccine development process and provides hope for the days ahead.

Pfizer and BioNTech SE launched the Phase 3 clinical trial of their vaccine candidate on July 27. As of Nov. 9, they have enrolled 43,538 participants worldwide. This is also the first American trial to have permission to enroll children as young as age 12. On Nov. 8, 94 trial participants had tested positive for COVID-19, enough to allow for the first analysis on all cases.

According to its Nov. 9 press release, Pfizer plans to present a submission for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA in the third week of November. The FDA requires the safety and manufacturing data of the vaccine to obtain approval. Meanwhile, in order to ensure the safety and long-term protection conferred by the experimental vaccine, clinical trial participants will be monitored for an additional two years after receiving the second dose.

One of the challenges the companies face is the widespread distribution of the vaccine once it is approved. The vaccine requires that the single-stranded mRNA be kept below -80 C to preserve the structural integrity of the genetic material. Consequently, the transportation of the vaccine requires special storage boxes and precise techniques.

Similar to Pfizer and BioNTech SE, Moderna Inc.’s vaccine candidate also uses mRNA technology, and recent results from its trial indicate an efficacy of over 94 percent. Moderna’s vaccine, however, does not require storage at temperatures of -80 C and can be preserved at about -20 C, giving it a slight advantage. At the same time, there are currently 17 vaccine candidates that have entered the Phase 2 safety trials, and 12 have begun Phase 3 trials for large-scale efficacy tests.

If Pfizer and BioNTech SE’s vaccine candidate is approved, the companies expect to manufacture globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021.

Weekly Climate News

November 12, 2020 

• A community conservation initiative to revitalize mangrove forests, a resource for fish and medicines as well as a natural mosquito repellant, is financing women’s businesses in Kenya. 

• A new research study indicates that hurricanes may be retaining surge strength once they move inland from coastal areas as a direct result of climate change. 

• Hurricane Eta made landfall in Florida, drenching the state in torrential rain and strong winds.  

• Data from acoustic and oceanographic instruments recovered by the Norwegian Coast Guard from iced-over waters north of Alaska will provide essential information for scientists researching Arctic Ocean climate changes.

• A biotech startup in Singapore is making milk without animals or humans. 

• Renewable electricity installation is on track to hit global records in 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. 

• Austin, Texas plans to invest $7 billion on a new transit system which will include a 31-station rail system, rapid bus routes and bike lanes. $460 million will be allocated specifically to infrastructure for enhancing walking and biking throughout the city. 

• Rising sea levels may threaten two-thirds of NASA’s infrastructure, so they are taking steps to prepare. Read about it here.

• Air pollution may cause threats to honey bee populations.

Women’s Scientific Coalition Proposes Marine Protection Areas in Rapidly Warming Antarctic Peninsula

Pictured above: Antarctica. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Members of the largest all-women’s expedition to Antarctica, organized by women in STEM initiative Homeward Bound, have formed an all-women’s scientific coalition which is offering ways to overcome the negative impacts of climate change on the fragile Antarctic environment. The lack of women in Antarctica’s research and exploratory history makes this coalition an important step toward empowering women in scientific fields. It consists of 289 scientists and includes the European Union, Russia and the U.S. 

Antarctica, which houses unique species, has a highly sensitive ecosystem. Climate change, along with human activity like tourism and fishing, endangers Antarctic organisms from microscopic algae to humpback whales. 

Antarctica’s ecosystem mainly depends on a species of crustacean called krill, which form the basis of the continent’s food chain. Climate change and the negative externalities of human activities have resulted in shrinking sea ice and higher sea levels, leaving krill larvae unsheltered. This could destabilize the entire food chain, affecting species populations faster due to the vulnerability of the ecosystem. 

The western peninsula of Antarctica is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth with a temperature of 20.75 degrees Celsius.  In a two-week-long meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in October 2020, the coalition proposed the western peninsula of Antarctica as a new marine protected area. This was led by Chile and Argentina. Currently, two areas in Antarctica have marine protection: the South Orkney Islands and the Ross Sea. Marga Gual Soler, a Spanish science policy advisor, told Reuters that the protection of this peninsula “would show the international community that collective action to tackle a global problem is possible.”

Climate and Conflict: How Climate Change Will Worsen the Crisis in Yemen

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

The ongoing war in Yemen is considered one of the most complex conflicts and the worst humanitarian crises in world history. The war has raged for around six years and is driven by a myriad of political and religious conflicts. Despite its complex nature, one driving force behind the conflict is climate change. While it is not a cause of the war, climate change has acted as an additional stressor that has worsened the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

The Yemeni Civil War began in 2014 after the replacement of authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh during the Arab Spring uprising of 2011, which created political weakness and led to a growing number of disillusioned Yemenis. The newly fragile state presented an opportunity for anti-government groups to gain power and territory in support of their various interests. On one side is the Houthi movement, who oppose the Yemeni government in defense of the country’s Zaidi Shia Muslim minority, along with citizens who were disappointed with the new government. Many of these citizens now support the rebellion. On the other side is the Yemeni government, which is joined by Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Arab country alarmed by the rise of Houthis and their potential support from Iran. Following the start of the conflict, the Southern Transitional Council, a sepratist movement supported by the United Arab Emirates, also joined the war. The conflict between these groups ravaged Yemen from all sides starting in 2014, causing over 100,000 deaths since 2015, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. 

The fighting in Yemen has recently slowed due to a ceasefire agreement known between the warring parties as the Stockholm Agreement, but the lack of a definitive end to the conflict has thrust Yemen into an indefinite humanitarian crisis. Yemeni citizens currently face extreme food and water scarcities, as well as vector-borne diseases that threaten their lives and health. The United States Agency for International Development estimates that 2 million people in Yemen are malnourished, 1.3 million of who are children and that the country’s water supply will be depleted in as little as 20 to 30 years. In addition to the existing stress on food and water, blockades on outside aid by both Saudi and Houthi forces have pushed the people of Yemen into a desolate state. 

Climate change will only worsen the current situation in Yemen. USAID’s 2016 Climate Change Risk Profile for Yemen states that the country will see an increased mean temperature, sea-level rise and extreme rain patterns as a result of climate change. Increased frequency and length of drought periods will prove detrimental to Yemen’s water supply, where key aquifers like the Arabian Aquifer System, which is already being overdrawn, will be replenished less frequently. Decreasing water availability and unpredictable droughts and floods due to climate change will also damage Yemen’s agricultural sector. Nearly 40 percent of available water resources are used for agriculture, which makes up 11.4 percent of the country’s GDP, according to USAID. Loss of such an important economic sector would add to current political instability and strife in Yemen. 

Sea level rise poses a threat to Yemen’s coastal regions; the country is one of the most vulnerable to coastal damage, according to USAID. Not only would the loss of coastal communities hurt Yemen’s economy, but it would also displace many of its citizens. This displacement would add to the 3.6 million people already internally displaced by conflict, and such a mass internal migration could cause added instability.

While there is a lack of clear evidence to support the idea, the Center for Climate and Security theorizes that water scarcity may have contributed to the rise of political unrest in Yemen, as the decline in the agricultural sector and conflicts over water may have increased recruitment opportunities for anti-government groups. Struggles over water sources will become increasingly likely in the future as water supplies diminish.

Not only does climate change worsen the situation in Yemen, but the war itself has stifled efforts to combat climate change. Plans to increase Yemen’s water supply include the development of desalination plants which convert ocean water into drinking water, but there were fears that these plants may become targets for groups looking to disrupt the country’s water supply. 

Climate change acts as a stressor and, in some ways, a driving force behind the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Yemen. As long as both war and climate change are present in the country, the two will result in a vicious cycle with no end in the foreseeable future. In order to alleviate the suffering in Yemen, increased international effort must be made to either remove the blockades on food and water, facilitate the safe relocation of citizens in areas most vulnerable to climate change or protect efforts to increase the water supply such as desalination plants. Before any change can be made, however, a widespread understanding of the links between climate change, war and human welfare must be reached.

International Biodiversity and Conservation Goals Face Significant Challenges in a Post-COVID-19 World

Photo courtesy of Pxhere.com

By Helen Gloege ’23 

Staff Writer

A recent leaked United Nations report showed that governments have failed to meet the internationally agreed-upon 2020 goals regarding biodiversity, along with more specific goals to prevent plant and wildlife loss.

In 2010, predating the Paris Accords, the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Nagoya, Japan. This convention produced the Aichi Targets that consisted of 20 conservation goals to safeguard global biodiversity. Each nation involved was expected to meet the determined objectives by 2020. Another summit was planned for October of this year but pandemic restrictions and COVID-19-related complications forced the summit to be rescheduled for May 2021 in Kunming, China. 

Despite that, data currently indicates that the goals have not been fully met. Of 44 sub-targets assessed by the leaked U.N. report, 20 are ranked as poor, 19 as moderate and only five as good. The report is not final, and the full U.N. report will include suggestions on how to move forward with planned COVID-19 recovery packages expected to help meet targets. The next summit will also include a proposal to protect at least 30 percent of the world’s land and seas by 2030. The proposal comes from a coalition led by Costa Rica and France and endorsed by the U.N. secretary-general, the E.U., the U.K. and Canada, among others.

Not meeting the Aichi Targets will have potentially devastating effects. If the 2020 goals are not met, it is highly unlikely that 2030 goals or any subsequent environmental goals will be met. It is also reported that nearly one-third of all emission cuts required to meet the Paris Agreement could come from nature-based solutions, meaning that not taking action in regard to biodiversity would be a significant barrier in hitting the Paris Agreement goals. 

Despite this outlook, several solutions could be implemented to boost maintenance of biodiversity efforts, including the encouragement of moderating meat consumption, the greening of urban areas and the protection of freshwater ecosystems.

The U.N. highlights a huge funding gap that would need to be fulfilled for significant action to be taken. It is estimated that the world needs to assemble an additional $600 to $824 billion a year. While this seems like a lot of money, in 2019, international actors such as governments, businesses and philanthropic organizations spent between $124 and $143 billion a year on activities that benefit the environment. The world currently spends less than $100 billion a year on nature conservation, which is equivalent to what people spend on pet food globally, according to the head of the U.N. Development Program, Achim Steiner. $700 billion, the amount in the middle of the two monetary targets, comprises less than 1 percent of the global GDP. In comparison, $5.2 trillion is spent on fossil fuel subsidies each year. A study by the Campaign for Nature discovered that only about $140 billion a year is needed to protect 30 percent of the planet.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that governments spend over four times as much money on agricultural, forestry and fishery subsidies that play a role in the degradation of nature than they spend on protecting nature. It is estimated that $274-542 billion is spent on subsidies for these industries annually, and these would have to be cut by $273.9 billion annually to help close the biodiversity payment gap. The subsidies currently pay for incentives for production by companies and consumption by consumers which exacerbate biodiversity loss. 

Individual countries are also committing to biodiversity efforts. Germany’s Minister of Development Gerd Muller said the country is increasing its annual investment of 500 million euros to help protect biodiversity in developing countries. Norway is planning to create a coalition to end tropical deforestation. The U.K. is vowing to double its funding to fight climate change over the next five years and is working to remove subsidies and replace them with a system that rewards environmental progress. 

Part of the struggle to meet biodiversity goals is because many studies fail to listen to women’s voices and account for their experiences. For example, a study of 106 small-scale fisheries worldwide ignored women who harvested invertebrates. This means that data on the total catch and species that are targeted by fishers was incomplete, affecting the outcomes of studies and conservation goals constructed from that data. The role of women in conservation and biodiversity has been historically undervalued. Globally, women tend to play key roles in managing land and resources. 

In many countries, women are involved in small-scale agriculture and don’t have as much of a voice as large-scale agriculture in the decision-making process of land use and access to resources. Indigenous and rural women especially tend to be marginalized in decision-making processes. Biodiversity loss burdens women and girls because it increases time spent obtaining necessary resources, which equates to time lost in generating income or pursuing an education. Research has shown that women in fishery or forest management groups create better resource governance and conservation outcomes. 

There is also the issue of colonial conservation, which impacts who makes decisions and funds initiatives for preserving biodiversity. This refers to the racist misconception that Indigenous peoples cannot be trusted to look over their land. About 80 percent of all of Earth’s biodiversity is in tribal territories. Recently, in Asia and Africa, governments and non-governmental organizations have been taking land from tribal people and local communities claiming it is for conservation purposes. 

These global issues of environmental conservation will be discussed for years to come, and with more frequency as the next environmental conventions begin in 2021.

Weekly Climate News

November 5, 2020

• The Filipino government announced that proposals for coal power plants will no longer be accepted. The significant policy change is aimed to increase involvement in the renewable energy sector.

• The United Nations summit stated that $700 billion will be needed to reverse human-induced destruction of the natural world. 

• Gray wolves will no longer be included on the endangered species lists recognized by the United States government. Read this article on why. 

• Hurricane Eta made landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane. 

• A decline in air traffic as a result of the pandemic has directly affected the quality of weather forecasts, as the amount of atmospheric data collected by commercial airliners has decreased. 

• Check out these six climate-related art installations referred to as “Artivism.” 

• Two-thirds of Georgetown University’s electricity will now be through solar energy. 

• A new research study found that the United States produces nearly five times as much plastic pollution as previously thought.  

• The United States has been urged to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord by a coalition of international investors. 

• A wind farm in Berlevåg, Norway is being used to produce hydrogen and green ammonia (renewable and carbon-free ammonia) which holds massive potential for renewable energy development.

On the Ballot: Climate Change

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

In the 2020 election, the issue of climate change often divides along party lines. Democrats tend to support policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions while Republicans generally take a more hands-off approach. Environmental policies also differ within the major political parties, specifically within the Democratic Party, as there are various moderate and left-leaning views. Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s responses to climate change have been split along party lines. 

Biden’s climate plan is regarded as one of the most progressive ever listed on the U.S. ticket. His proposal promises to make a $1.7 trillion federal investment in environmental justice and clean energy over the next 10 years. Biden has been seen as an opponent of the Green New Deal, the congressional resolution put forth by progressive members of the Democratic Party to fight climate change.  “I don’t support the Green New Deal,” Biden said during the first presidential debate. However, the plan that Biden’s campaign has released is similarly modeled after the Green New Deal in that it connects protection of the environment to the revitalization of the economy.

Biden’s plan has five key aspects. He promises the United States will use 100 percent green energy and have net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. He will invest in the nation’s infrastructure, which may improve climate resilience. The Biden campaign also pledges to rally the rest of the world to join in the United States’ efforts to combat climate change by urging other nations to abstain from actions that harm the environment, such as arctic drilling. By serving as a leader in the fight against climate change, Biden hopes to lead the world in creating green technologies and environmentally safe industry standards. Biden advocates for environmental justice and promises to stand up to the large polluters who, as the plan highlights, disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. According to his plan, Biden will secure benefits for and invest in workers in the coal and power plant industries as the economy shifts toward clean energy.

Many conservatives have rallied against the progressive Green New Deal since it was proposed in Congress by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in February 2019. Trump has accused Biden of supporting the Green New Deal, and Biden in turn denounced the congressional resolution. While Biden says he endorses the framework of the Green New Deal seen in his own climate plan, their formats are fundamentally different.

 The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution. It’s a broad framework that outlines the goals of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 while providing improved infrastructure and secure jobs for all Americans. Biden’s climate plan offers specific details about how the climate and economic goals would be achieved.

On the other hand, Trump has yet to release a cohesive plan of what he would do if granted a second term in office, but rather has provided a list of individual steps that he has already taken to benefit the environment as well as the economy. For example, he created a Superfund task force to streamline the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, signed an executive order to protect and restore one trillion trees by 2030 and invested in clean water infrastructure. When it comes to burning fossil fuels, Trump has rescinded the Obama administration’s clean power plan — along with a number of other environmental regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions — and worked to improve infrastructure and resources needed to increase gas and oil production in the U.S.

From immense detail to a more laissez-faire approach, there are several partisan ways to address environmental issues, such as climate change. Both candidates have taken steps to address the environment in a way that will please their core bases.

What We Know and Don’t Know About Air Pollution’s Impact on Human Health

Photo courtesy of ECF.com

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

At the start of this year’s pandemic-induced lockdown, a decline in air pollution produced photos demonstrating a clearer, lighter and completely unobstructed view of the India Gate War Memorial in New Delhi, India, and the clear, blue waves of the Grand Canal in Venice, Italy, known for its murky waters. These examples of the real-world impact of decreased air pollution reveal the dramatic effects of what the world would look like if air quality improved. While the amount of global air pollution has a clear connection to human activity, there is little known about the impact of air pollution on human health and what possible compounding effects it might hold for future generations. 

The World Health Organization estimates that over 90 percent of the world’s population breathes air containing harmful pollution levels. Polluted air often contains airborne particulate matter that is considered especially dangerous. Particulate matter refers to the mix of solid particles and liquid droplets. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye, such as dust, dirt or smoke, while others are microscopic and remain unseen. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, particles come in various sizes and shapes and can entail hundreds of different chemicals. Some particles are emitted directly from sources, such as fires, fields or construction sites. Most of the particles form in the atmosphere due to chemical reactions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. 

There is not much known about the impact or location of particulate matter. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is planning a satellite mission that will help determine connections between particulate matter, air pollution and human health. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will launch into orbit around the Earth in 2022. The data from the satellite will provide maps of particulate matter air pollution that will be used by epidemiologists to study different types of particulate matter and its impact on health. 

Currently, there is a belief that infections derived from air pollution-related health problems make people more susceptible to severe illnesses. Larger particulate matter is responsible for irritating airways, while smaller particles may go deeper into the lungs and cause inflammation that affects other organs. Particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller is associated with an increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. People who breathe more particulate matter are more likely to develop lung cancer, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and health issues during pregnancy. 

A map produced by Physicians for Social Responsibility shows neighborhood-by-neighborhood pollution levels across Los Angeles overlaid by COVID-19 case counts. The maps show that heavily polluted areas tend to worsen COVID-19 outbreaks, while areas with less pollution have fewer COVID-19 cases. Researchers at Harvard University reported that individuals living in areas with higher smog levels were more likely to die from COVID-19. Other researchers from Emory University found a similar correlation that linked higher COVID-19 death rates with nitrogen dioxide exposure.
It is unlikely that air pollution is the full story. Redlining practices frequently exclude people of color from neighborhoods considered desirable, instead pushing them into housing near freeways, refineries and power plants. COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people of color. They are more likely to suffer from preexisting conditions, less likely to have access to health care and more likely to work jobs that are not remote. This information indicates that air pollution exposure isn’t the full story, and it is probable that there are other effects at play.

Scientists have used monitoring instruments on or in the ground to measure air pollution exposure. However, to gain an accurate sample, a dense array of monitors is needed. The Multi-Angle Imager for Aerosols satellite will acquire data from space, preventing a need for monitors on the ground. Completed studies will examine the impact of long-term exposure to air pollution, focusing on particular locations. The target areas will be based on a set of criteria, including population, variability in the amount and type of particle matter, how well monitored the area is and access to public health records. The data will also apply to other research, including investigating aerosol and cloud interactions with climate. Aside from epidemiologists and other scientists who will use the raw data, policymakers and air quality regulators would also benefit from the information.

           This information will benefit a recent international health study called the Global Burden of Disease, which claimed that breathing in particulate matter resulted in over 4 million premature deaths globally. Another recent study specifically addressed the impact of air pollution on people in South Asia. It is expected that in New Delhi, going outside and simply breathing the air can shorten one’s life span by over nine years. 

There is currently a surge in air pollution in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Bangladesh currently leads with the lowest average life span, with air pollution cutting the average life expectancy by about 6.2 years. Air pollution will shorten the average Indian life expectancy by 5.2 years. There are certain areas with much worse average life expectancy reductions, such as Delhi’s 9.4 years and Uttar Pradesh’s 8.6 years. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the average life is shortened by 2.7 years. In Nepal, life expectancy is cut by 4.7 years. 

The traditional air quality index provides daily air quality assessments but does not include the health risks that may result from the air quality. The air quality life index converts particulate matter air pollution into its impact on life expectancy. This work has quantified the causal relationship between human exposure to air pollution and reduced life expectancy.

Particulate matter, as previously mentioned, has an impact on respiratory, immune and cardiovascular systems. Recent studies have pointed toward a link between long-term exposure to air pollution and global deaths from COVID-19. A study published in the Cardiovascular Research journal estimates that about 15 percent of global deaths from COVID-19 could be linked to particulate matter exposure. The study analyzed health and disease in the U.S. and China in connection with air pollution, including COVID-19 and SARS. The information gathered from the study was combined with data from satellites and ground monitoring on global exposure to particulate matter. That information was combined with satellite data and ground monitoring of global exposure to particulate matter. Particulate matter is known to increase the likelihood of COVID-19 risk factors such as asthma, lung and heart problems. Moreover, particulate matter appears to increase ACE-2 receptor activity, which is known to be involved in the way COVID-19 infects patients. The study says that this doesn’t mean pollution is responsible for killing people with COVID-19. Still, the pollution particles are likely factors that aggravate the disease.

Current information highlights how little we know about the effects of air pollution and particulate matter on human health. Governments are responsible for setting limits on hazardous air pollutants to protect the public. Still, it is hard to determine the line for acceptable risk without adequate information. We know that methods for monitoring and estimating air toxins aren’t sufficient enough to determine the risks to human health, and more research needs to be done on the long- and short-term impacts. Attention must be paid to the separation of causal factors, as the combinations of hazardous air pollutants could have cascading effects and cause different outcomes.