From One Pandemic To Another: Commemorating World HIV/Aids Day

By Anoushka Singh Kuswaha ‘24

Health & Science Staff Writer 

Since 1988, Dec. 1 has marked World AIDS Day — the first instituted global health day. The event is an opportunity for the global community to unite in the fight against HIV/AIDS, show support for people living with HIV/AIDS and honor those who have succumbed to complications arising from one or the other. As governments around the world create plans to handle the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States reflected on its response to the ongoing HIV epidemic. The day was defined by the theme, “Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: Resilience and Impact.” 

Despite being identified a mere 36 years ago in 1984, more than 35 million people have died of HIV-induced immunodeficiency, commonly known as AIDS.  In 2019, upwards of 690,000 people died of AIDS-related illnesses. A recent Global Fund survey found that in sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS-related deaths have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic began due to lockdowns and a diversion of resources to combat SARS-CoV-2, the COVID-19 virus. But even with these rising statistics, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is perhaps felt less strongly in our society today due to scientific advances allowing for treatment and a better understanding of the disease. 

HIV originated in 1920 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It spread to Haiti and the Caribbean before moving to New York City around 1970. It arrived on the West Coast of the United States throughout the 1970s. Health officials in the U.S. became aware of the disease in 1981 when otherwise healthy gay men in Los Angeles and New York began getting sick and dying due to illnesses that were typically associated with people with severely weakened immune systems. 

Initially, researchers and scientists referred to the syndrome that would later be called AIDS as “gay-related immune deficiency.” This was because the disease appeared to disproportionately affect members of the LGBTQ+ community, especially gay men. Later it was discovered that the disease also affected intravenous drug users, who would regularly become infected by sharing contaminated hypodermic needles, and women with male sexual partners. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created and used the term AIDS in a report describing the disease in 1982. 

This was not enough to quell the use of the term “gay plague” by popular media. The usage of the term led to stigmatization and discrimination against the people who had it. This attitude persists to this day, making it difficult for those affected with HIV or AIDS to become educated about and seek treatment for the disease or the virus itself. Days such as World AIDS day seek to reverse this stigma. 

HIV and AIDS are often conflated; however, they are not the same. HIV is a virus that attacks the immune system and can lead to the development of AIDS, or Stage 3 HIV. AIDS is a condition that develops as a result of the severe damage to the immune system caused by HIV. Stage 3 HIV can lead to greater susceptibility to opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis and pneumonia. However, HIV does not always progress to AIDS. Treatments such as antiretroviral therapy (ART) can make the virus more manageable and reduce the risk of infecting others, but there is no cure.

There are several ways for Mount Holyoke students to educate themselves on the disease and ways they can get involved in the global fight. Students can support on-campus organizations that create awareness and aim to increase education surrounding the disease, such as Planned Parenthood Generation Action. Health Services is also available as a resource for education and potential volunteering opportunities through the Peer Health Educator program. For further information, people can visit websites like https://www.worldaidsday.org/ or https://www.aidsmemorial.org/ for more information.  

Weekly Climate News

December 3, 2020

• Outdoor heating systems have made an emergence into the outdoor dining scene as a result of the pandemic. Read this article on how they impact the environment. 

• A compromise was reached between European and Saudi Arabian leaders on climate change at the G20 summit.

• Bates Smart, an architecture firm in Melbourne, Australia, made plans to turn 1,200 acres of empty parking garage roofs into rooftop gardens.  

• A joint U.S. and European satellite that will monitor the world’s oceans and the rise of global sea levels launched Nov. 21. 

• Global warming makes Northeastern forests more susceptible to the large-scale wildfires that frequently light up the western United States. 

• Natural disasters are increasing around the world, leaving marginalized and less advantaged communities in extremely dangerous living conditions.   

• The United Nations will make building a global net-zero emissions coalition a priority for 2021. 

• Canada is set to put a goal for net-zero emissions by 2050 into law. 

• New Zealand declared a climate change emergency. 

Op-Ed: How the COVID-19 Crisis Reveals Barriers To Solving Climate Change

Image courtesy of Pexels.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

Humans have long entertained a complex relationship with cooperation. In the U.S. specifically, praise for individualism and a mixed trust of institutions mark our relationships with one another and how we view ourselves within a greater society. While we can go through the daily motions without considering the complicated nature of cooperation in America, the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the issue at our feet, laying open our society in a way that begs us to take a closer look.

Mask-wearing and social distancing have served as an obvious trial of Americans’ ability to act together with a particularly high-stakes incentive for collective action. Because masks protect others more than those wearing them, those who use them are choosing to benefit others at their own expense with the hope that everyone will do the same. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in August found that around 85 percent of adults say they regularly wear masks in stores and other businesses. While this number is admirable, an outspoken minority has been seen protesting mask mandates across the country. Many reasons exist as to why these so-called “anti-maskers” refuse to wear face coverings in public, one of which is a concern that mask mandates infringe on the rights and freedoms guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution. Individual freedom has long been considered a core part of American society going back to John Locke’s declaration of fundamental rights held by all individuals and the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. American individualism has grown and changed since the birth of our country, and today it is often used as a reason to evade cooperation in favor of personal benefit.

State and local governments are also failing to cooperate effectively in response to COVID-19. According to an article from The Guardian, states with Democratic governors have enacted school shutdowns, business closures and other COVID-19-related restrictions faster than states with Republican governors. The trend of instituting state health policy actions along party lines rather than based on the needs of the community and the recommendations of scientists show that other motives are at play. Along with varying responses among states, mixed signals given by government officials from local leaders to the president have caused confusion about the correct response to the virus and made a cohesive campaign impossible.

Variation in the response to the virus is not completely irrational. Concerns over the economic and human costs of closing businesses are legitimate, but the virus pays no mind to state lines. Now is not the time for states to prioritize their own economic interests, as this does little to abate the virus and ultimately leaves everyone worse off. If there was a consistent and coordinated response from states when the virus first entered the U.S., we might not be in the condition we find ourselves in today: with cases matching the levels last seen in April and the economy struggling.

If every person chooses to wear a mask and every state institutes travel restrictions and closes public spaces, COVID-19 cases will decline and we will eventually return to our normal lives with fewer deaths. But this happy ending can still be achieved without total participation. A few people or counties could “cheat” and refuse to follow safety measures along with the rest of the country while benefiting from the sacrifices of those around them. Everyone has an incentive to cheat, whether it be social or economic, but as we see more and more individuals and states make choices that help themselves at the expense of others, we stray further from a virus-free future. 

The struggles we face with cooperation will not end with the pandemic. It is now more important than ever for us to look deeply at societal cooperation in the U.S. If we choose to learn from our mistakes now, we may be able to act together to protect the environment for the future. Climate change is one of the most collaborative issues humankind has ever faced. Every country, organization and person needs to do their part to avoid the catastrophic fates predicted by scientists.

We have seen in many ways how the refusal to cooperate has stopped potential strides in the fight against climate change. Struggles to pass climate legislation in Congress, corporations cheating on pollution restrictions and a growing league of climate deniers prevent necessary changes from being made to protect the environment in favor of political and economic gain for powerful people and organizations. Not only do these forces allow climate change to gain strength, they sow seeds of distrust in American society. 

As the challenges we face grow bigger and more complex, perhaps it is time to go back to the basics. We must consider our role within society, and the American government must consider its role as a world power. We must ask ourselves what drives our decisions and what we can do to build a better future — not only for ourselves, but for our greater community and those who will take our place in the future.

Environmental Impacts of Physical Barriers on the Border Between the US and Mexico

Pictured above: the Border Wall. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Abby Wester ’22 

Staff Writer

The U.S.-Mexico border wall has been a point of contention in American politics since President Donald Trump made a promise to expand it during his 2016 presidential campaign. Along with political concerns about the effectiveness and morality of physical borders, worries about their environmental effects have also arisen.

Physical barriers have existed on the U.S.-Mexico border for decades, dating back to the early 1900s. In recent history, the fencing along the border was expanded under President George W. Bush when he signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 — a move supported by former President Barack Obama, 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Senator Chuck Schumer. 

When Trump won the 2016 election, he came closer to realizing his promise of expanding the wall along the country’s southern border. Though he has been working against political opposition to building the wall, he has remained true to his promise. Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order to begin building the border wall — and in January 2019, the longest American government shutdown took place because, according to Trump, the federal government’s budget did not put enough money toward building the wall. In Trump’s final weeks in office, he is still pushing to fulfill his promise and continue building the wall along the southern border, making it harder for President-elect Joe Biden to be able to undo the actions of his predecessor.

Since the plan’s emergence, the expansion of the border wall has significantly alarmed scientists and environmentalists, as it has a number of negative environmental impacts. Bush-era fencing has resulted in flooding in parts of Arizona due to the buildup of debris blocking natural water flows during rainfall. The barriers do not allow animals to migrate within their habitats, limiting their ability to find food and water and escape from floods or fires. A Bioscience paper concluded that a full border wall would inhibit one-third of 346 native wildlife species from accessing 50 percent or more of their natural habitats. The border wall also disrupts wildlife refuges, national parks, Indigenous lands and surrounding communities. 

The environmental effects of physical barriers have existed for years on the border between the U.S. and Mexico, but they have been exacerbated by Trump’s expansion plans. While Trump’s time in office may have only lasted four years, the environmental and social impact of the border wall will long outlast his presidency. 

Biden Announces John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

Pictured above: former Secretary of State John Kerry. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer 

President-elect Joe Biden announced on Nov. 23 that former Secretary of State John Kerry will serve as the special presidential envoy for climate, a new position created by Biden’s team. Kerry will serve as a cabinet-level appointee in the administration and will sit on the National Security Council as its first-ever official dedicated to climate change. 

The term “presidential” in his title means that Kerry is likely to report directly to Biden. The term “envoy” means that Kerry is a senior diplomat and is thus responsible for representing the U.S. climate agenda in diplomatic circles, including in meetings with foreign leaders. Biden’s team has also promised to instate a domestic equivalent to Kerry, an appointment that has yet to be announced.

The appointment of Kerry to this office indicates a shift in policy and approach to climate from the last four years under the Trump administration. The position shows that Biden’s approach to climate change is a foreign policy issue because Kerry will sit on the NSC and work with international officials. Kerry will also be sent as a representative of the U.S. on climate-related issues — an unusual feature of this appointment in that most envoys normally require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

During the Obama administration, Carol Browner, an Environmental Protection Agency administrator, served as a domestic climate policy coordinator. Browner was known for having a vast wealth of knowledge on climate change, but her pushes for action were frequently countered by Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic advisor. 

Kerry succeeded Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2013 and played a significant role in the development of the Paris climate accord. In 2019, Kerry co-founded a bipartisan initiative of world leaders and celebrities to combat the climate crisis dubbed World War Zero. During this past Democratic primary, he was the co-chair of the Biden-Sanders unity task force that was focused on producing recommendations on climate.

After its announcement, Kerry’s appointment received much praise. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State, said he “cannot think of one person better qualified” for the job than Kerry. The Sierra Club’s acting Deputy Director for Policy and Advocacy Dalal Aboulhosn pointed to Kerry’s longtime advocacy on climate and decades of political experience as key positive aspects of the nomination. Former Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, who was a climate negotiator under secretary of state for global affairs in President Bill Clinton’s administration, noted that Kerry “understands the depth of the climate issue and the need for a huge global economic transition.” Co-founder and Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement Varshini Prakash, who co-chaired Biden’s climate task force, also praised Kerry’s appointment, saying he is “committed to engaging and listening to young voices — even when we might not always agree — ensuring we have a seat at the table.” Sunrise also responded to the position, calling for a domestic counterpart to Kerry, which the Biden team responded to by saying there would be a domestic counterpart announced in the near future.

Despite many encouraging responses, not all reactions have been positive. Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Action, said that “Kerry has been a long-time apologist for fossil fuel fracking, and a reliable promoter of false climate solutions.” The environmental group Food & Water Action has doubted whether Biden’s vision will be fast or effective enough. Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton is also critical of the appointment, saying, “John Kerry [is] thrilled at [the] prospect of returning to his dream job of living in Central European luxury hotels while negotiating deals that are bad for America.”

The position of special presidential envoy for climate could be the beginning of many climate-related positions in the Cabinet and government. For now, the creation of this post shows that tackling the climate crisis is a priority for the new executive branch. Within the upcoming weeks, it is likely we will know Kerry’s promised domestic counterpart and more details about the Biden administration’s plans to confront the climate crisis.

The Ugly Truth About Cosmetics

Image courtesy of Pxhere

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

The cosmetics industry has been scrutinized for turning a blind eye toward unethical practices that are harmful to the environment. The industry produces more than 120 billion units of packaging material annually. Although there has been a surge over the past decade or so of products marketed as “pure,” “organic” or “cruelty-free,” a majority of these are still taking a toll on the environment. Eighty-nine percent of the ingredients used in cosmetics are not regulated by the FDA, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review or any other publicly accountable institution, giving brands a chance to add hazardous chemicals and carcinogens that damage both the human body and the Earth. 

One significant environmental impact of the cosmetics industry is microbeads. Microbeads are little plastic balls less than 5 millimeters in diameter most commonly present in skincare products to give them an exfoliating effect. While these particles are scrubbed off of the skin in one to two minutes, they have rinsed down the drain, where they escape wastewater treatment centers and remain in the environment for tens of thousands of years. These beads have the capacity to upset the entire food chains. They are routinely digested by marine life which, in turn, is consumed by humans, who end up ingesting the microbeads’ harmful toxins. 

While countries like Canada, the United States, South Korea and some European nations are realizing the toxic effects of microbeads, these plastic particles have yet to be universally eradicated. Since some versions of plastic microbeads are too small to see with the naked eye, Beat the Microbead, an app and database, helps buyers check for the presence of this pollutant and make informed decisions about specific products. Skincare specialists and cosmetologists recommend using natural exfoliants instead, such as coffee grounds and jojoba beads. These experts also place a greater emphasis on chemical exfoliants, thus eliminating the need for physically abrasive and environmentally harmful skincare. 

While under the pretense of being eco-friendly, popular brands are still including bizarre animal products in cosmetics. Animal wax is a recurrent product in lip balms, and lipsticks owe their reddish tint to crushed red beetles. Most lipsticks have an ingredient called “pearl essence” — another name for fish scales — that gives them a unique luster. There are many, many more ingredients that have been renamed with elegant terms in order to obscure their origins. 

Fortunately, many brands are acknowledging this crisis, and in response, newer and cleaner companies are being launched. ILIA Beauty and Au Naturale are relatively transparent brands that are powering their way through the makeup market with natural tints and vegan products. The CosmEthics app and PETA’s website give exhaustive directories of animal ingredients and their ethical alternatives. 

A much less acknowledged side of the makeup world is the illegitimate procuring of ingredients for most products. Vanilla, a familiar ingredient used as an aromatic in the cosmetics industry, is the second most expensive spice in the world. Almost 80 percent of this spice sold globally comes from Madagascar where child labor, extensive working hours and underpaid cultivators are commonplace. While the price of vanilla fluctuates between $200 to $400 a kilogram, the field workers are paid only around $8 per kilogram. Similarly, cocoa farmers in tropical West Africa, especially in Ghana and on the Ivory Coast, supply almost 70 percent of the world’s cocoa. Many organizations have exposed the extensive use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery in these extremely competitive cocoa farms where wages stoop as low as $2 per day. 

Mica, a mineral that adds glitter to everyday makeup, is largely found in India where it is illegally scavenged on protected forestland. This has caused major deforestation and loss of wildlife in large parts of the country. Children as young as 6 years old are involved in mica scavenging, a hazardous activity that increases one’s risk of tuberculosis and early death. Workers’ lives are at risk of being suffocated in mica mines; in fact, a 2016 report by the Thomson Reuters Foundation revealed that seven children had been smothered to death in mica mines in a span of just two months. 

The daily use of cosmetic plastic products generates millions of tons of non-biodegradable waste. Makeup wipes, toothbrushes and disposable razors are the most commonly disposed of items. Diana Felton MD, the state toxicologist with the Hawaii Department of Health, said, “20 million pounds of single-use wipes (including baby wipes and disinfecting wipes) are disposed of every day in the U.S. Many wipes are disposed of in landfills, and despite claims to the contrary, most are not biodegradable and do not rapidly break down, creating too much trash to fit in our landfills.” The plastic fibers from these wipes leech into the oceans and create a hazard to marine life. To make matters worse, these single-use wipes come in equally harmful plastic packaging, which doubles the waste quantities they contribute. Makeup experts suggest eliminating makeup wipes from people’s routines entirely and instead of using organic makeup removers or reusable washcloths. 

Similarly, disposable razors and toothbrushes have bodies made entirely out of plastic that, when thrown away, pile up in landfills for years to come. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Americans tossed out more than 2 billion razors. Since then, the American population has grown by almost 75 million. According to research by FOREO, a Swedish multinational beauty brand, 1 billion plastic toothbrushes (50 million pounds’ worth of plastic) are thrown away annually. These toothbrushes and razors face the same fate as the makeup wipes. As more awareness is raised about these polluting products, recyclable metal razors and bamboo toothbrushes are making headway in the beauty and health care industries. 

As the world opens its eyes to the hazards of daily beauty practices and items, a few companies are trying to create change. Makeup artists and influencers like PaintedByEsther and Salwa Rahman are inspiring their followers by upcycling containers, encouraging people to buy secondhand products and refusing to promote companies that do not have a waste reduction policy. “The concept of refillable makeup should become the norm, as it … drastically reduces the eco-footprint of an item,” says Lyndsey Bates, U.K. director of the world’s first refillable makeup brand, ZAO Beauty. “Furthermore, packaging can then be made sustainable.”

Weekly Climate News

November 19, 2020

• U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a 10-point plan for a “green industrial revolution” with the long-term goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The plan includes an increase in green investments along with the creation of 250,000 jobs in the sector. 

• The U.N. approved a fuel efficiency deal with the International Maritime Organization that allows shipping emissions to decrease by only 1 percent until 2030, despite much opposition to the inadequacy of the deal. 

• With no plans to achieve carbon neutrality before the end of the century, Russia is looking to expand its Arctic gas industry.

• U.S. President-elect Joe Biden stated that he will “name and shame global climate outlaws,” indicating that a hard line on climate will be drawn under the incoming administration. Potential climate outlaws may include Australia, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, China and Saudia Arabia.  

• The Trump administration will face challenges if it moves forward with its plan to sell the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

• Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced that Line 5, an underwater pipeline that provides Ontario with oil from refineries in Michigan, will be shutting down due to environmental concerns. The pipeline has been in operation since the 1950s.

• Tucson, Arizona, experienced record-breaking heat this September, which prompted city officials to declare a climate emergency. Read this article on where they stand now. 

• Astypalea, a Greek island in the Aegean Sea, will be replacing all fossil fuel cars with electric vehicles as part of its climate-neutral approach. 

• A new study found that urban greenery adds CO2 to the atmosphere through decomposition, which increases overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

Controversial Wolf Restoration Proposition Passed by Colorado Voters

Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, an effort to restore the state’s gray wolf population. Hunted nearly to extinction in the 1900s, Proposition 114 aims to reintroduce gray wolves into Western Colorado to restore the population to self-sustaining levels as other states have successfully done in the past.

Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado will play an important role in connecting existing wolf populations in the Rocky Mountain regions above and below the state. The text of the proposition states that bringing wolves back to Colorado “will help restore a critical balance in nature” by helping to complete ecosystem cycles interrupted when the wolf population dropped. 

Wolf restoration projects have garnered a positive reputation among environmentalists due to their success in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. After wolves were reintroduced into the park, the subsequent reduction in elk and deer populations allowed willow and aspen trees along riverbanks to recover from overgrazing. As a result, the park’s rivers became more stable, and other animal populations grew in abundance as the natural environment was restored. 

The powerful effect of wolves on the environment comes from their importance as an apex predator or a species at the top of its food chain. This means that any changes to the population of wolves in an area will ripple through the ecosystem. 

Despite the reintroduction of wolves making immediate changes to the park’s environment, other factors such as drought and hunting also decreased the elk population. This means that wolves were not the sole saviors of Yellowstone National Park and that the positive effects of wolf restoration on the environment may not occur in other projects.

According to Proposition 114, the reintroduction of wolves will be restricted to “designated lands,” referring to the area west of the continental divide that runs down the ridge of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. This region constitutes the rural area of Colorado, with most of the state’s urban population living east of the Rockies, making support for the proposition lie strongly with the state’s urban voters. Ranchers and big game hunters make up the bulk of opposition to the measure due to their concerns over wolves presenting a danger to livestock and creating competition for hunters.

According to Proposition 114, a plan for wolf reintroduction will be formulated based on the “best scientific data available” and regular state hearings, as well as opportunities for public input. The measure also includes an allocation of funds to “assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock” and “pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.” Colorado has had a higher number of wolf restoration projects than other states, warranting extra consideration from voters about the potential for unwanted contact with wolves.

The potential of wolf-livestock conflict is a major concern for Colorado ranchers. While wolves have been reported to kill livestock at low rates — Colorado State University estimates that under 1 percent of cattle in the Rocky Mountain states are killed by wolves — these killings are often unevenly distributed, meaning that the livestock of a small group of ranchers could become the target of multiple attacks. 

An additional source of controversy surrounding Proposition 114 is its position as an unprecedented method of determining state wildlife policy. The proposition represents the first time that wildlife restoration issues in Colorado have been put in the hands of voters rather than determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. The commission is appointed by the governor and its members come from a variety of backgrounds, from a hunting outfitter owner to an environmental attorney. 

Some opposition to Proposition 114 comes from the belief that wildlife management decisions should be made by those with experience rather than the general public. In 2016, the CPWC rejected a wolf reintroduction proposal based on Colorado not being part of the historic range of gray wolves, the success of other states’ restoration efforts and potential damage to the agriculture and big game hunting industries. 

Donations to campaigns for and against the proposition show the stark differences between the two sides. The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund led the campaign in support of the measure and raised over $1.7 million to help pass the proposition. Many donations to the fund came from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the other hand, Stop the Wolf PAC raised over $70,000 in an effort to prevent the proposition from being passed, most of which came from individuals donating small amounts.

Given the divisiveness of the issue, its passage with 51 percent of the vote comes as no surprise. The measure passed by a narrow margin of about 57,000 votes, according to Ballotpedia. Proposition 114 will go into effect in Colorado by the end of 2023, but its results will be seen over the next several decades.