Experimental Coral Reef Preservation Strategies Are Underway

Pictured above: Coral reefs.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Despite being out of the eye of the general population, the destruction of reefs is impacting the livelihoods of approximately 1 billion people globally.  These effects are seen through reduced biodiversity, lower fish stocks and a higher rate of coastal erosion. In the past 20 years, 50 percent of coral reefs have been lost, and by 2050, more than 90 percent are expected to die. The causes of this erosion include overfishing, the bleaching of coastlands, an increase in ocean temperature and other exploitative factors that further intensify the damage. In areas of destruction, scientists are attempting new methods of preserving the reefs, such as the relocation of more resilient corals and the new implementation of 3D-printed corals. 

The impacts of global warming have caused increasing challenges for reefs and coral. A large number of reefs are temperature sensitive and struggle to survive 1 degree Celsius above the summer maximum of the region. Additionally, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide also increases the acidity of oceans, further producing challenging living environments. 

In efforts to revive coral communities, one solution is moving heat resilient corals, which can cope with temperatures between 6 and 7 degrees Celsius hotter and can survive in acidic waters, to struggling reefs elsewhere. However, there are significant obstacles, such as the need to save the thermally resilient species from extinction due to factors other than global warming like physical damage from construction, development and overfishing. Another concern is the introduction of a new species of corals into an ecosystem, which may significantly change its equilibrium. 

Efforts also include more experimental methods, such as integrating 3D printing technology. In 2018, the largest 3D printed coral reef was deployed at a site in Maldives using a technology called the Modular Artificial Reef Structures. These not only substitute real corals for coral farming, which is the cultivation of corals for commercial purposes, but can also create new reef habitats in degraded areas or new locations. However, using artificial structures as restoration tools is expensive and cannot act as a replacement for conservation strategies. 

In environmental conservation, finding local organic solutions that could result in long-lasting positive effects on the community is essential for sustainability. One example is a coral reef restoration project off of a 4.3-mile-long island in Kenya led by the women of the community. According to the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Institute, between  60 and 90 percent of coral reefs were destroyed in some surveyed areas. 

Local communities that largely depend on fishing and ecotourism have suffered from the loss of these reefs, as the reefs provide breeding grounds for hundreds of species of marine life. In response, the women of Wasini Island have been restoring fish populations by cultivating seagrass, which plays a key role in the overall coral reef ecosystem. The seagrass provides shelter to juvenile fish who then mature and move into the reefs. The project also involves building artificial coral reefs using locally found materials such as rock boulders held together with hydraulic cement. Corals grown in nurseries are then planted on these artificial reefs and have a survival rate of 75 percent after transplant.

All these methods involve constant experimentation, and results vary depending on the ecosystems. Law enforcement, the involvement of government and independent agencies, financial support and the cooperation of local communities have been necessary for the largest movements toward the conservation of coral reefs.

Flood and Fire Risks Are Frequently Undisclosed

Photo courtesy of Freephotos.com.

By  Helen Gloege ’23
Staff Writer

Since 2016, over 1 million natural disaster displacements have occurred each year in the U.S. It is predicted that the number of people who will be displaced by natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires will increase. By 2100, 6 feet of sea-level rise could force 13.1 million Americans to relocate. Climate change will soon factor into homebuyers’ and renters’ choices of where to live, but most are not warned about flood or wildfire risk in their new homes. They often pay for the resulting damages financially and beyond, in lives lost and the toll on physical and mental health that can last for years to come. The annual number of floods and wildfires that exceed $1 billion in damage has increased in recent years. Between 2015 and September 2020, there have been 28 of these disasters in the United States.

Fire prevention is on the minds of those who live in Western states, and there is political division on how best to prevent fires. The governors of California, Oregon and Washington have all indicated that climate change is the reason for the fires. President Donald Trump, however, has argued that the fires resulted from how the states manage their forests. 

Scientists have pointed toward forest thinning and controlled burns as solutions. However, complicating this is the influx of people moving into rural areas or building vacation cabins in the woods, leading to populated small acreages. This means that, if controlled burns were to escape, they would most likely move onto someone’s property.

Millions of people living in the West have moved into fire-prone landscapes with little warning of risk from government, real estate agents or sellers. Between 1992 and 2015, about 60 million homes were within less than a mile of a wildfire, and that number has since increased. 

Only Oregon and California require wildfire risk to be disclosed to residents. Frequently, this disclosure amounts to a few lines buried in hundreds of pages of text. In Oregon, homebuyers didn’t see the word “wildfire” mentioned in a disclosure statement recorded during a sale, only a line that said the property was in the “forestland-urban interface.” In California, there is a special form for disclosing natural hazards that states risk level, but these rules are only enforced in some parts of the state. If this applies, homeowners are responsible for clearing flammable brush and dry vegetation that would create a defensible space between the house and the fire. 

California lawmakers passed a bill in 2019 that increases wildfire disclosure. This law includes that, starting in 2021, sellers must inform the buyer if they are following flammable brush rules and provide a list of potential ways their house may be susceptible to fires. Starting in 2025, sellers must say if they have completed retrofits to make the house more fire-resistant. 

Even if states did want to disclose wildfire risk, the information isn’t always available. Wildfire risk mapping involves detailed modeling because fire behavior fluctuates greatly. In 2020, the U.S. Forest Service released new maps showing community risk nationwide, but the maps aren’t scaled to use for individual properties. According to NPR, “Insurance companies have done the most detailed risk analysis but most homeowners won’t find out unless the insurance rates go up or their policy is canceled.” Additionally, most existing wildfire maps don’t reflect the added risk from climate change.

The decision made to build in these fire-prone areas is usually made by developers and local officials. They are frequently guided by large-scale zoning plans that don’t take wildfire risks into account. These local governments are financially incentivized to allow new development in risky areas. Homeowners need to know wildfire risks to allow them to make informed decisions. Homebuyers will also be more likely to have evacuation plans and take fireproofing steps. They will understand that preparing for wildfires isn’t a one-time job. 

Wildfire risk is not the only natural disaster with a lack of transparency. Growing research has suggested that flood risk also falls under this category, despite the growing risk due to climate change. There are an estimated 15 million properties that have a significant risk of flooding. Between 1980 and 2017, about 80 percent of presidential disaster declarations were for events that involved flooding; however, only 29 states require flood disclosure laws. The 21 states that don’t require information include some of the most vulnerable, like Florida, Virginia and Massachusetts. 

Residents of states that do require flood risk disclosure frequently don’t know they live in harm’s way until it is too late. In 27 of the 29 states that require disclosure, potential buyers receive information about flood risk after they make an offer on the house. The information often isn’t clear as most states’ requirements involve a single check box if the property is on an official flood plain. This may not be an accurate indicator of flood potential, as official flood maps have hard lines between areas with high flood risk and little to no flood risk. 

In addition, nearly one-third of all flood damage occurs outside of official flood plains. After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017, a law was passed requiring sellers to tell buyers if the house is in a flood zone and if they had flood insurance. Similar attempts in other states have stalled due to a fear of driving down property values. Indeed, research has suggested that disclosing flood risk may cause a decrease in property values by about 4 percent.

Future and current homebuyers may not listen to maps or data. However, the clear dissemination of information regarding fire and flood risk would allow the increasing number of homeowners moving into high-risk areas to understand the possible dangers and take precautions by purchasing flood insurance or making a house more fire-resistant.

Weekly Climate News

October 8, 2020

• The European Parliament voted in favor of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 60 percent by 2030, an update from the previous 40 percent. 

• South Asia is in the midst of the worst monsoon season it has experienced in the past decade with an estimated 17.5 million people in India, Bangladesh and Nepal affected by the severe flooding. The floods, combined with the pandemic, have heightened the need for significant economic recovery and damage finance. 

• COVID-19 has exposed Mexico City’s increasing water crisis, with vulnerable households experiencing shortages while gated communities have sufficient access to supplies. 

• The August complex fire which started in California has expanded beyond one million acres, requiring it to take on the new classification of “gigafire,” the first in modern history. 

• New data shows that 2020 had the warmest September on record. 

• Woodlands in the Northeast experience changes as a result of climate change. Read about it here. 

• The racial achievement gap in United States schools has been widening as a result of increasing temperatures, a new study shows, which is yet another example of how the impacts of climate change are being felt disproportionately by people of color.

• A new partnership between the U.S. and Qatar is working on finding buried water in earth’s deserts. 

• The ice loss in Greenland is likely to be more this century than at any other time in the history of civilization. 

Tightening Restrictions on the Spread of Climate Misinformation: Facebook, Covering Climate Now and More

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

Climate change has been evident this summer, between enough hurricanes to run out the 21 annual alphabetical names and forest fires across the West Coast and southwestern U.S. Along with the sharp and unwavering presence of environmental emergencies, there is a necessity to learn the truth about the climate crisis and its effects on daily life. In a modern and increasingly online era, people wishing to learn about the climate crisis often turn to online news platforms and social networks such as Facebook. 

Various news organizations have already been seen making changes in the information they report on climate change. Covering Climate Now was created to allow climate coverage to improve and give information to the public. The site was co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation in association with The Guardian and aims to help news organizations increase and improve coverage of the climate crisis as well as possible solutions. Various news services that have joined include The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN, the Los Angeles Times and many others. 

NBC News, which joined Covering Climate Now in April, launched Planet 2020, a new series, during the week of September 21. This broadcast involves Al Roker, the network’s chief climate correspondent and longtime weather forecaster who has been talking about climate change on the “Today” show for years now, and co-host Savannah Sellers. Together Roker and Sellers connect dots between extreme weather, climate change and the upcoming 2020 election. They hope to target millennials and Generation Z, groups that make up 37 percent of eligible voters. 

Another Covering Climate Now partner, Bloomberg, has launched a new digital outlet and print addition, Bloomberg Green, that aims to deal with economic aspects of the climate story. 

Of course, this hasn’t solved all of the problems in relation to coverage of climate change. It was found that only one of 93 segments that aired on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and MSNBC during the week Hurricane Laura hit the Louisiana coast connected the storm to climate change. In addition, out of the 46 segments ABC, NBC and CBS aired about the California wildfires, only seven of them mentioned climate change, demonstrating a huge need for improvement in journalistic coverage of significant climate events.

Along with news outlets, social media is a big source of information for the public. Recently, Facebook pledged to create a Climate Science Information Center aimed at connecting people with science-based information and putting the company at net zero emissions by the end of the year. The information center includes factual resources from the world’s leading climate organizations and actionable steps one can take in everyday life. This includes facts, figures and data from places such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and climate science partners, including the U.N. Environment Programme, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the World Meteorological Organization, the Met Office and others. They will also be partnering with 70 independent fact-checking organizations globally that will cover over 60 languages. Outside of the information center, they plan to reduce false climate-related posts in News Feed and apply warning labels to tops of posts on Facebook and Instagram so viewers understand the content is false. This has already launched in France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. and will expand to other countries later on.

This is a new step for Facebook, which has in the past allowed false, misleading or disputed information on the platform. However, since the announcement, climate scientists and environmental groups claim the effort doesn’t do enough to rein in false climate change information and conspiracies. As many people use social media for their news, there is pressure on social media companies to do more to address climate change misinformation on their platforms. Distrust from climate activists and environmental groups with Facebook grew back in September 2019 when the CO2 Coalition claimed carbon dioxide from humans is beneficial for the planet, labeled as an opinion by Facebook. This has created a general concern from the public that climate misinformation will continue to run rampant despite these new measures. 

Additional concerns say that this initiative enables Facebook to set clear lines on fact and fiction. Outside of the Climate Science Information Center, Facebook plans to continue with warning labels that show false information but won’t take down posts unless they are an immediate safety risk. It is also unclear how many users will visit the information centers or how many people will see false information before it is labeled as false. Facebook is trying to find a balance between allowing free speech and tackling misinformation.

Part of the concern about Facebook misinformation comes from a larger concern about social media in general. In a recent study done through online network analysis firm Graphika, climate deniers were found to be posting on average four times as much as climate scientists, experts and campaigners. Since virality is how social media companies make money, it is likely that groups of people who post frequently can cause posts to go viral and receive attention without going through fact-checking processes. Social media also allows for echo chambers to form where groups of like-minded users will gather together and frequently share news and opinions that are similar. For example, there could be a Facebook group that claims that climate change is false and would ignore the false statement on Facebook posts because it disagrees with their idea. 

After the announcement in regard to the climate hub was made, hundreds of accounts linked to Indigenous, environmental and social justice organizations were suspended. For three days, over 200 people with posting privileges on pages involving those organizations were locked. Around the time they were suspended, there were events planned through Facebook that would have occurred during the lockout period. Facebook notices claimed account holders had posted the content that infringed on or violated others’ rights or the law; however, when reinstated, Facebook told them it wasn’t for these reasons. It is unclear why the accounts were taken down and Facebook has yet to provide a clear explanation. Bans are frequently performed by a social media algorithm without human involvement, meaning there is a possibility for loopholes that claim true information is false or don’t flag false information.

With the increased visibility of the effects of climate change in our daily lives, news agencies and Facebook have begun to act on the responsibility they hold to the public by providing information and updates on climate change. It is important for the information on climate change to be accurate in order for appropriate actions to be taken. There is still a long way to go in preventing the spread of misinformation in relation to climate change.

Climate Change in the Presidential Debates: A Hopeful Outlook

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

Climate change is a growing crisis affecting the environment in a multitude of ways. In the past few months alone, the United States has seen historically devastating fires on the West Coast and a record-breaking hurricane season on the East Coast. Despite how this global crisis is expected to disturb economies, infrastructure and human health, it is still a heavily contested subject in American politics. United States presidential debates have a history of glossing over, or completely ignoring, the issue of climate change. The heated and insult-ridden presidential debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on Sept. 29 directly addressed the subject for the first time in 12 years.

The last question about climate change in a presidential debate was posed in 2008. This year, moderator Chris Wallace dedicated 10 minutes of discussion to the topic. According to a Tweet made by meteorologist and journalist Eric Holthaus, those 10 minutes “[double] the total amount of time [spent talking about climate change] in all 2000 minutes of presidential debates since 1988.”

In an interview with NBC News, Nathan Hultman, director of the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland, stated that the presence of questions about climate change in the debate “[reflect] the heightened political and grassroots interest in the subject.” Groups such as the Sunrise Movement have been advocating for discussion about climate change since June 2019, when they staged a sit-in outside of the Democratic National Headquarters demanding a Democratic primary debate dedicated to the discussion of climate. 

Wallace’s question delivered differing answers from the two candidates. Trump spoke about his aspiration of “crystal-clean water and air” while dodging questions about his rollbacks of Obama-era environmental legislation and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords. Biden laid out his plan for renewable energy, but separated himself from the Green New Deal proposed by left-wing Democratic congresspeople. 

Although the candidates’ answers were filled with insults and interruptions, they still left an impression of their beliefs about climate change. Environmentalists and Americans worried about climate change were left with a sense of reassurance that this topic will be discussed further in the future of U.S. politics.

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

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

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. 

• Gavin Newsom (CA-D), California’s governor, issued a ban on all gasoline powered cars after 2035. Legal challenges are expected. 

• 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.