SCIENTISTS EXPERIMENT WITH CLIMATE INTERVENTION TO DELAY THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING BY MARIA LYNDERS
As the consequences of global warming become more dire, a research team led by Stony Brook University Professor Jessica Gurevitch is examining the ecological impacts of using a form of geoengineering to mitigate the effects of global warming. Geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is a set of proposed methods and technologies designed to alleviate the impacts of environmental change caused by global warming while society works to reduce emissions. One theoretical approach of geoengineering is called stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI) which involves injecting gaseous precursors of reflective sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere in an attempt to reflect some of the sunlight back into space and in turn, cooling the Earth’s surface. Nine of the hottest years in human history have occurred in the past decade, with 2020 tied for the hottest year on record according to NASA scientists. If this trend continues, melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, extreme weather events and intense heat waves are just a few of the repercussions the Earth would face. “There is a very real possibility that some kind of climate intervention will become more and more pressing,” Gurevitch, a professor of ecology and evolution said. “But we don’t know enough about what would happen to ecological systems, biodiversity, endangered species and other environmental impacts.” In 2015, Gurevitch attended the annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, and came up with the idea to form a group of ecologists and climate scientists who would work together to learn more about geoengineering. The idea came about after she met climate scientist Alan Robock. Gurevitch at the time knew little about geoengineering and was surprised to learn from Robock that climate scientists had been researching climate intervention through computer modeling for years. “One of the limitations in science is we tend to get very immersed in our own disciplines,” she said. “To me, geoengineering was this wild and crazy idea that people had suggested, but I had no idea how much research had been done already.” Gurevitch then asked Robock the question that would guide their future research: “What would be the ecological impacts?” Robock had
no answer, but he was willing to collaborate to find out. After researching and publishing an earlier paper, Robock and Gurevitch continued their work by reaching out to 14 other scientists in 2018 to form a team called the Climate Intervention Biology Working Group. Their goal was to get ecologists and climate scientists working together to think about the impacts geoengineering could have — not only on temperature but also on living organisms. “At first, most of the ecologists didn’t know anything about climate modification or geoengineering,” Gurevitch said. “By the time you are an advanced scientist you feel like you’re such an expert, then you go into another field and you’re clueless.” In September 2019, the group began to meet virtually every month to discuss and put together a paper outlining the concern and need for more research surrounding geoengineering, specifically SAI. Now the group’s seminal paper, “Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth,” is published in the most recent 2021 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. The paper discusses the current gaps in knowledge about both helpful and harmful predicted impacts of SAI on ecological systems. Phoebe Zarnetske, an associate professor of ecology at Michigan State University and a researcher on the study, explained that there are numerous different scenarios to implement SAI and the impact of each scenario would differ greatly. She also explained there is no clarity about the governance of implementing and monitoring a climate intervention of this scale. “How long would the injections occur? Where they would occur? How would we know when to stop?” she said. “These are huge decisions that require everyone coming to the table and voicing their opinion.” Gurevitch emphasized that more interdisciplinary research about geoengineering is vital to understand the risks and potential benefits of climate intervention and whether it should ever be implemented. If society does come to the desperate situation of using climate intervention, Robock said further exploration is so that the decisions made in the future “will be informed rather than from panic.” That is not to say this research should take away from efforts to reduce emissions, Gurevitch said. In March, the National Academy of Sciences issued a major report recommending that the U.S. pursue
research to further understand the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering, but stated it should not be a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “The message needs to be clear that reductions in emissions is the number one priority,” Zarnetske said. “This research should not take away from the resources allocated towards researching anthropogenic climate change, it should be in addition to that.” Robock had a similar view. “I really don’t want to be working on geoengineering; we know what the solution is, which is to leave fossil fuel in the ground,” he said. “The sooner and faster we work on that, the lesser the problem we are dealing with.” Gurevitch has been teaching and talking about climate change for 30 years, but her message has stayed the same. “This is an emergency. This is not the future. This is happening now,” she said. Unfortunately, society has been slow to take action. “People were in denial about the reality of the pandemic as bodies were piling up in refrigerated trucks right out in the street,” Gurevitch said. “If you can’t see that when it’s right in front of your very face, how are we going to deal with climate change which is more subtle and more removed from individual experience?” Robock thinks one solution is a gradual increase in carbon tax. If people had to pay to pollute the atmosphere, it would offer an incentive to resort to clean energy. Now that their paper is published, the working group has submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation to quantify what the effects of SAI on different ecosystems would be. Robock said they have picked several places in India, working with computer modeling, to calculate how climate and ecosystems would change in response to different proposed geoengineering schemes. They will also host a session about this topic at the Ecological Society of America’s annual meeting in August. Gurevitch said she hopes to involve social scientists in the study since human behavior is central to climate change. “This paper and this group is not advocating geoengineering, we’re advocating understanding more about it so that we understand what those risks are relative to climate change,” she said. “People like to say this is bad, this is good, but for this we just don’t know enough — we need to know more.”
WHY INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS ARE DRAGGING DOWN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT BY MATT VENEZIA Matt Venezia is a sophomore biology major with a minor in writing. Reduce, reuse, recycle. It’s what we are told from a young age and is the introduction to environmentalism for most people today. This message is generally regarded as helpful, and rightfully so — if we as a society reduced, reused and recycled more of what we produce, global pollution and carbon emissions would likely decrease. The roots of this mantra are disputed, but it dates back to the 1970s. The environmental movement in the United States arose during this time, thanks to Rachel Carson's 1962 true story environmentalist novel “Silent Spring,” which documented the adverse effects of careless chemical use and inspired many people to become environmentalists, as well as the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Once a fringe movement with little involvement, environmentalism broadened its horizons with activists addressing pollution and environmental degradation, leading to various pieces of legislation passed on the local, state and federal levels. Environmentalism was brought to the masses via books, television, radio and every medium in between. One particular TV commercial stands out as a defining part of what popularized the movement in the mainstream: the Keep America Beautiful Campaign’s “crying Indian commercial.” Widely televised throughout the nation in the 70s and into the 80s, it depicts an indigenous man — portrayed by an Italian-American — shedding a single tear after a man driving on the highway throws his trash out of his car and at his feet. The voiceover states, “Some people have a deep abiding respect for the natural beauty that was once this country. And some people don’t. People start pollution, and people can stop it.” The commercial’s message of don’t pollute seems fairly harmless as it’s similar to reduce, reuse, recycle. This commercial, as well as the Keep America Beautiful Campaign, are responsible for beginning some of the recycling programs of American municipalities. But who funded the creation of the campaign and the commercial? Corporations predominantly. This includes Coca-Cola and Nestle, two of the world’s top plastic polluters, as well as Aramco, the world’s largest oil company and a major player in the plastics industry. In truth, the commercial was a distraction for the environmental movement. It successfully shifted the blame for pollution from industry to consumer in a single tear. Small, individual actions, like creating a recycling program, quickly became the backbone of the message for the mainstream environmental movement, much to the delight of the corporations who funded the commercial. Fifty years later, nothing much has changed. Ikea recently released a similar advertisement that touts their corporate sustainability with the phrase “small decisions make a world of difference” while the company continues to illegally source timber from old-growth forests in Eastern Europe. Popular social media posts from oil giant British Petroleum (BP) encourage individuals to measure their own carbon footprint, when in reality, BP is one of the 50 companies responsible for half of the industrial carbon footprint. This type of message pushing the responsibility onto the individual has seeped into the purpose statements and vernacular of environmentalist writing networks, nonprofits and popular advocates alike. It also has increasingly centered the focus of the environmental movement on small, individual actions. Though individual actions are certainly important, there is only so much time we can dedicate to sustainability and only so many sacrifices each of us will make for the planet. Environmentalists, including myself at times, are distracted from the true reason that the Earth’s forests are shrinking, its oceans are polluted and greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Roughly 100 companies are responsible for 70% of the world’s industrial carbon emissions and we can trace most of the plastic pollution on Earth back to a few countries, namely China and the United States. For a sustainable future — and an environmental movement with a tangible, positive impact on climate change — a focus on organized systemic change is necessary. While individual actions are important, they are partly a distraction from what we must do to secure the planet for future generations. Holding corporations and governments accountable for emissions, pushing for subsidies of energy with a low carbon footprint and placing accountability back onto corporations that create the most waste are important steps. Ultimately, a fundamental change is necessary for how environmentalism is framed in the media. Small decisions rarely make a world of difference when it comes to global climate change. It’s time to focus on the big decisions — while we still have time.
HOPE FOR THE AMERICAN CHESTNUT TREES, A DYING SPECIES BY BRIANNE LEDDA
“A tree came down, look at that.” Sue Avery, a botanist and certified landscaper, examines a thin wire cage along the border of the Ashley Schiff Preserve on campus. A slender sapling grows in the center, hardly visible against a backdrop of leaves and debris. It’s barely mid-April — too early for the shoot to have grown leaves. A fallen tree rests barely a foot away; a few inches closer, and it might have crushed the sapling. Avery isn’t sure about the exact origin of the sapling. “It came from a batch of fertilized nuts collected from blight-resistant trees or from results of cross-pollination between flowering trees on Long Island,” she said. A fungus, also known as chestnut blight, wiped out mature American chestnut trees in the 1950s. It’s one of two that have been planted in the Ashley Schiff Preserve. The other is a hybrid, a mix of Chinese and American chestnut trees from the American Chestnut Foundation, an organization dedicated to reviving the American chestnut tree. Friends of the Ashley Schiff Preserve, an organization that protects and manages the forest where Avery is secretary, hopes one of these two saplings will eventually flower and grow chestnuts. Once a dominant presence in America’s eastern woodlands, mature American chestnut trees went functionally extinct in the 1950s after an invasive fungus from Asia began to rampage through forests in the early 20th century. Towering at heights ranging up to 100 feet, with trunk diameters often spanning more than 10 feet, billions of these trees once spanned from Maine to Alabama. “The devastation of the American chestnut by the chestnut blight represents one of the greatest recorded changes in natural plant population caused by an introduced organism," William MacDonald, a researcher and faculty member at West Virginia University, wrote more than 30 years ago. Today, the species is mostly reduced to offshoots that grow from the surviving root systems of decimated trees, or “stump-sprouts.” A 2006 Stony Brook study counted close to 160 groups of “stump-sprout” offshoots on campus, according to Geosciences Professor Gilbert Hanson. “Anywhere where there’s forest that's preserved, there'll be chestnuts in it; you just have to look for it,” Hanson, who oversaw the student-led study, said. Few survive for longer than a few years, though — the blight kills them too. The fungus can survive on other hosts, such as oak trees, which it doesn’t kill. Groups like the American Chestnut Foundation have been experimenting for decades to develop a blight-resistant American chestnut tree and restore the species to its former glory in American forests. Nikolaos Nantsis from the American Chestnut Foundation’s Long Island chapter said the tree was integral to American ecosystems and economy. Forest wildlife, such as white-tailed deers and black bears, relied on nuts from the trees. The trees were especially important to the lumber industry, as a particularly rot-resistant wood, and farmers made a living on harvesting their nuts. “It’s America’s native chestnut tree,” he said. “These trees, in a way, helped build America. They shaped the landscape. It’s our moral obligation to help revive the species that we unfortunately damaged.” Researchers at the State University of New York (SUNY) College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), for instance, have developed a blight-resistant American chestnut called Darling 58. They are currently working with regulatory agencies for approval to distribute the plant. Darling 58 is coded with a “single gene insert” of oxalate oxidase from wheat, according to Dakota Matthews, the American Chestnut Project’s molecular lab manager at ESF. This gene codes for a protein that converts oxalic acid into hydrogen peroxide and carbon dioxide, both byproducts that benefit the tree. Oxalic acid is a substance secreted by the blight that kills off tree tissue. Fungal pathogens from the blight eat the tree tissue killed by oxalic acid, creating cankers around tree trunks that effectively kill the plant upwards from that point. “With the development of that and other possible resistance genes, we began isolating American chestnut embryos from immature chestnuts, learning how to propagate them from little baby embryos, inducing shoots, and then all the way up into a full tree,” Matthews explained. SUNY ESF is still in the process of applying for federal regulatory approval. Research results to date have indicated “there are no significant ecological effects of inserting” the gene, besides “enhancing blight tolerance,” according to the American Chestnut Foundation website. The website also indicates there are no negative human health consequences to inserting the gene, which is non-allergenic and naturally present in many food crops. “Once we finish doing that, as long as everything's okay ... we'll be able to distribute these trees and plant them out and repopulate the American chestnut,” Matthews said. The Ashley Schiff Preserve doesn’t have a Darling 58 chestnut tree. Avery thinks the preserve would be a good place to plant one, but she’s not the only person who would need to approve a request for one. “We’ll have to see how the plants we introduced will work out,” she said. Nantsis has no doubts that Darling 58 trees will help restore the American chestnut tree. The added gene will enable American chestnut trees to “not only be able to survive but thrive and do what they used to do,” he said. Nantsis said if Darling 58 trees are approved, the Long Island chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation plans to plant as many in forests as possible “to make sure we not only get the species back to where it used to be, but outcross these species with mother trees in the wild.”
ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM — THE DELIBERATE POISONING OF BIPOC BY AMAYA MCDONALD
Environmental policies fail to prioritize the well-being of people of color who continue to fall victim to the effects of environmental racism. Environmental racism is “racial discrimination in defining environmental policies, discriminatory enforcement of regulations and laws … and the exclusion of people of color from environmental leadership positions.” This definition was developed by civil rights leader Benjamin Chavin in 1982. While pollution and other environmental issues affect people of all races, low-income communities where people of color make the majority are more heavily affected. In an interview with The Statesman, associate professor of English and Sustainability Heidi Hutner said, “Racism permeates every aspect of society. Everything we breathe, and eat, and are exposed to currently, most of it is extremely detrimental and we have to consider that it is greatly harmful to our poorest, most voiceless communities.” The effects of modern environmental racism stem from colonialism, racial discrimination and segregation in the United States. “Environmental racism is about looking at minority people and people of color as less human than white people,” Jeffrey Santa Ana, associate professor at Stony Brook University’s English Department, said. “It’s this split between ourselves as humans and everything else that’s not considered human, and very often it’s poor people, people of color, colonized people from other countries that are considered less human than wealthy white people.” He described the forced displacement of Indigenous peoples from their homelands and the destruction of their environment as “a classic case of environmental racism.” “For centuries, Indigenous people in North America have suffered under the consequences of colonialism,” Santa Ana said. “When white people came to North America, they displaced Native people. One way in which they did that was purposely giving Native people diseases. That’s an example of environmental racism from centuries ago.” Native Americans are still fighting environmental racism enforced through governmental policy to protect their land. One example can be seen in the climate change activism and protests for indigenous rights led by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota. Since 2016, opponents of the Dakota Access pipeline have been arguing that the project intended to transport oil from North Dakota to Illinois is a threat to sacred native lands and could contaminate their water supply from the Missouri River. Disregard for the health and environmental safety of Indigenous people and other minority groups highlights the inequity forced upon the victims of environmental racism. These inequities can be seen in the disparities in healthcare, education, and income between people of color and their white counterparts. “Black, Indigenous and people of color are exposed to lots and lots of contamination which affects them in all kinds of ways,” Hutner said. “And
add climate change to the mix. We know that underprivileged communities are the hardest hit and the least taken care of. The least concern and help goes to them.” This disparity is highlighted in the ongoing water pollution crisis in Flint, Michigan where a majority of the low-income residents are Black, Hispanic and Latinx. The water crisis began in 2014 when the city’s water source was switched to the Flint River in response to a financial emergency. Since then, residents have made complaints that the discolored water from the river causes skin rashes, hair loss and itchy skin. Contaminated with toxic waste, raw sewage and agricultural runoff, the water from Flint River has incited elevated blood-lead levels in children which can lead to “damage to the brain and nervous system; slowed growth and development; learning and behavior problems; and hearing and speech problems.” Effects of lead if ingested by adults can include an increased “risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney disease and reduced fertility.” These extremely harmful effects demonstrate how environmental racism influences the everyday lives of minority groups that are in direct contact with pollutants and toxins. “At its core, the definition of environmental racism is a definition put out by health experts,” Santa Ana said. “They have defined this term to indicate that it’s deliberate and intentional racial discrimination when you look at poor communities, particularly Black and Brown communities, immigrant communities, as places where you can dump toxic waste. Where you can build industrial plants that emit all kinds of toxins and pollutants.” While the water in Flint, Michigan has been deemed safe for drinking after six years of dysfunction, the event highlights the disregard for the health of minorities and the little support their receive from the government. “BIPOC, are the hardest hit and the least helped,” Hutner said, acknowledging the relationship between systematic and environmental racism. The fight for environmental justice has become more mainstream. The movement founded by Robert Bullard in the 1980s is defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” To achieve environmental justice, supporters of the cause are focused on the collective goal to ensure equal protection for people of all communities and to gain equal access to participate in policy making processes in order to create healthy living and working environments. “We must make concerted efforts to address racism and address it in the environmental world, and not just to say it, but really work on it in a very deliberate way,” Hutner said. “We really need to reorganize all of our policies and we need to focus on health and environmental safety for all in every community.”
HOW NEOCOLONIALISM IS KILLING OUR PLANET BY BENJAMIN JOFFE
Benjamin Joffe is a freshman political science major. The global climate crisis will soon reach a critical level. As emissions rise rapidly worldwide, the point of irreversible damage draws ever closer, with recent studies showing that this could occur as soon as 2027. Yet, global resources continue to be overexploited; global forestation has decreased by 4% since 1990, 33% of soil has been degraded and 29% of the global fish stocks are overfished. For decades, international communities of activists have called for immediate action to be taken, but to date, there has been no solution that has truly addressed the leading factor behind the climate crisis: corporate exploitation. In efforts to avoid regulations, such as respecting nature preserves, limiting emissions as well as taxes and standards of worker compensation, corporations turn to nations with developing economies to manufacture their products while paying workers unlivable wages. Oil corporations such as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP take this practice of undermining regulations one step further by regularly promoting environmentally damaging practices. In fact, Lenny Bernstein, Exxon’s former inhouse climate expert, stated in an email that Exxon was aware that its 1981 Natuna oil site would be considered a “carbon bomb” as it was composed of 70% carbon dioxide. It is practices such as these that have led to only 100 corporations making up 70% of all global emissions. How did the practice of avoiding regulation and exploiting developing nations become the standard of turning a profit? The answer lies within the symbiotic relationship that has existed between corporations and governments, especially within the United States. The U.S. has a bloody history of using military interference to drive profits to national industries. In South America, the U.S. has sponsored coups of democratically elected leaders dozens of times, if it thought its economic interests were being threatened. This happens especially when a nation seeks to economically benefit their people, often with the implementation of socialist policies.
When Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz won the democratic presidential election in 1951, he established a series of communist reforms which strongly restricted the exploitative practices of American fruit companies. Seeing this, American fruit companies demanded a coup, and in 1954, U.S.-backed forces established a new government in Guatemala that would continue business with exploitative American companies. Thus, the effects of imperialism are still seen around the world, as nations historically subjected to imperialistic practices have had their economic development hindered and are now being exploited by corporations as sources of cheap labor. This practice is known as neocolonialism, in which modern superpowers continue to exploit formerly colonized territories. But cheap labor isn’t the only thing that draws industries to developing nations. Exclusive resource depots found that many economically developing nations pique the interests of predatory corporations and promote unjust practices. In Brazil for instance, U.S.-based corporations such as Walmart, Cargill and McDonald’s continue to profit from deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, as the destruction of forests increases available space for the production of soy and beef. If deforestation is to continue at this pace, 27% of the Amazon will be without trees by 2030. The war in Iraq clearly showed that if a nation is reluctant to hand over resources, western powers would not hesitate to resort to military action. For nearly 30 years prior to its invasion, Iraq had fully nationalized its large oil industry and refused to allow western oil companies to operate. Behind closed doors, this decision is what ultimately drove the west to invade Iraq in 2003. After a brutal war, oil corporations such as Exxon, Chevron, BP and Haliburton saw their profits skyrocket as new oil reserves became
available for extraction. Haliburton alone brought in $39.5 billion from U.S. contracts in Iraq. It is this level of exploitation that is eerily similar to the imperialism practiced centuries ago. The current state of capitalism, built upon centuries of imperialism, where consumerism and demand are ever-increasing, cannot sustain itself without taking advantage of both the people and resources belonging to developing countries. This is demonstrated by the blood the west has shed in order to further its economic interests; there is a consensus among economic powers that without exploiting the resources of developing nations, their economies would suffer. A legislative solution to this issue would be difficult to reach, as the citizens of western democracies would likely never vote against their own immediate best interests, such as keeping oil prices low. President Joe Biden has made promises to slash carbon emissions during his administration, yet no concrete legislation has been passed. Still, progressive legislation that will reform domestic practices can serve as a first step towards reforming how corporations exercise resource extraction worldwide. The Green New Deal, a bill that would create new policies to address the climate crisis, has long been called into action by progressives who aim to spearhead net-zero carbon emissions within the U.S. This could inspire the international community to follow suit and enforce corporate accountability to curb exploitative practices. The current path undertaken by economic powers is unsustainable, and immediate action must be taken to avoid irreversible climate damage and economic failure. While reform is difficult, it is certainly possible if leaders openly acknowledge and seek to mend neocolonial practices.
LEGALIZING RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IS WHAT WE NEEDED ALL ALONG BY MATT LINDSAY
Matt Lindsay is a senior journalism major. On March 31, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation legalizing the use of recreational marijuana for adults in New York State. While medicinal marijuana has been legal in the state since July 2014, the new bill's passage coincides with Earth Day, giving the term “tree-hugger” a whole new definition. While I have never used marijuana, I fully support the legalization of it for several reasons. I now feel better about hanging out with my weed-smoking friends. A typical summer night before COVID-19 consisted of my friends smoking in the woods as I waited in the car to drive them around. Although I miss those nights, I don't miss the anxiety of possibly being pulled over while my friends were high. I won't be paranoid once we can get together again. I've wanted to try marijuana for a long time just to see what it's like, and when I turn 21 later this year, I'll feel comfortable doing so (sorry mom!). It’s just a plant, after all. Aside from my personal reasons for why marijuana should be legal, there are even greater stakes that benefit the country. But before I go into the pros of its legalization, I want to address some common opposing arguments. A 2015 Pew Research survey compiled arguments for and against the legalization of marijuana, in which 44% of people thought it should be illegal. A common argument against recreational marijuana is that it impairs decisionmaking and motor skills. While this is true, we can say the same for alcohol, which is also notorious for causing long-term liver and heart problems. If marijuana should be illegal, then why shouldn’t alcohol? Another argument is that marijuana is a gateway drug — a habit-forming drug that could lead to the use of other, more addictive drugs. While there are some studies that support this idea, most marijuana users don’t end up using harder drugs. Because of the negative effects marijuana can have on children, some parents believe it should be illegal. Regardless if marijuana is legal, teens will get their hands on it. When I first saw someone smoking pot, I was in eighth grade, and it only grew in popularity among my peers during high school. In the same Pew Research survey, 49% of people said they had tried marijuana; recreational marijuana was only legal in Colorado and Washington at the time of the survey. In fact, legal weed could be safer to use because it is approved for use by a regulated dispensary, whereas marijuana purchased from a drug dealer could be laced with more dangerous drugs. To elaborate on my point above, legalizing a substance that causes fewer longterm problems than alcohol and tobacco will also provide economic benefits. While the U.S. has been recovering from the highest unemployment rate since World War II as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, New York is the farthest away from its pre-pandemic economy than any of the 50 states. Retail sales of recreational marijuana aren't expected to begin until mid-to-late 2022, so it won't immediately improve New York's economy, but it will help the state prosper for years to come. New York’s proposal estimates the marijuana industry to create between 30,000 and 60,000 jobs. California passed recreational
marijuana legislation in November 2016 and had created about 48,000 direct jobs and 67,000 total jobs in the legal cannabis industry by 2018. The New York Times estimates that New York’s marijuana industry could be worth $4.2 billion and become the largest cannabis market in the country. Recreational marijuana sales are estimated to generate $350 million in annual tax revenue in New York, with that number increasing annually. In 2020, Colorado brought in over $387 million in marijuana tax revenue compared to only $67 million in 2014. Marijuana has already brought in over $69 million in the first two months of 2021, putting Colorado on track to see over $418 million in tax revenue this year. Washington has seen similar growth, as its 2015 revenue of $65 million grew to $395 million in 2019. In Cuomo’s budget proposal, he announced that 40% of marijuana tax revenue would go to a social equity fund, 40% to education and 20% for drug treatment and education. In addition to the tax revenue distribution to fight social injustice, legalizing weed will help combat racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests. A 2017 study showed that 86% of people who faced marijuana charges in New York City from 2014 to 2016 were Black or Latino, while marijuana use was more prevalent among white people ages 18-25 than it was among people of color. According to the report, in areas like Manhattan's Upper West Side, where people of color make up just 12% of the population, they accounted for 80% of marijuana possession arrests in 2016. With marijuana legalized, we should see a significant decrease in the possession arrests that have targeted people of color for decades; people who have been convicted of marijuana possession charges that are now legal will also have their criminal records expunged. With Earth Day in mind, legalizing marijuana could also be more beneficial for the environment. Illegal marijuana in the U.S. is typically grown in dark warehouses or deep in national forests to keep the operation hidden. In warehouses, the plants are supplemented with grow lights that consume vast amounts of energy. Marijuana plots in forests, called trespass grows, use about 9 billion gallons of water per year. Growers also coat their plants with illegal pesticides that kill birds, fish and mammals. When police officers or federal agents discover illegal marijuana, they typically spray the plants with herbicides before burning them. Burning the herbicides releases them into the environment, where they can harm plants and animals. Legalizing marijuana will reduce the need for these harmful chemicals, as law enforcement will have less illegal weed to destroy. A 2019 study showed that the number of trespass grows decreased in Oregon forests after the state legalized marijuana. Regulating cannabis production can also promote more eco-friendly farming practices. In 2015, Boulder County introduced laws requiring licensed growers to use only 100% renewable energy. While growing marijuana consumes a lot of water and energy, supervised cultivation procedures are better for the environment than illegal methods. However, as we move past years of ineffective lobbying and criticism of a plant, there is an aspect of its legalization that needs to be celebrated. If you want to light up some of Mother Nature's more potent grass to celebrate Earth Day, you can now do so without fear.
SUNY FACULTY AND STAFF PUSH FOR RETIREMENT FUND TO DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUEL INVESTMENTS BY ALEK LEWIS
A group of State University of New York (SUNY) employees want their retirement fund to pull their investments from industries and companies that are damaging the environment and contributing to climate change. Stony Brook University’s Senate, United University Professions and six other New York higher education institutions have passed resolutions over the past few months supporting the effort to make SUNY’s primary retirement equity-fund company, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA), divest $8.42 billion of their investments in fossil fuels and invest the sum into renewable energy. With scientists warning of a growing climate crisis, large businesses and governments have promised to divest as part of their climate plans. New York state has committed to divesting from fossil fuels into clean energy as part of 2019’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act; the state’s Common Retirement Fund divested $7 million from oil sand firms on April 12. Advocates said the goal is to pass resolutions at as many universities as possible and pass a SUNY-wide resolution to encourage the SUNY Chancellor and Board of Trustees to take action. “I tried to get the attention of as many people [at Stony Brook] as I could and found that so many people were interested,” Justin Johnston, an associate professor of English at Stony Brook said. Johnston sponsored the resolution in Stony Brook’s University Senate, which passed with 81% of the governing body’s vote. Johnston's resolution was drafted with the help of TIAA Divest, an organization made up of environmental advocates and academics who condemn TIAA’s investments in fossil fuels and companies participating in deforestation. According to Chain Reaction Research, who review the behaviors of companies and their link to deforestation, companies which TIAA has invested in have been implicated in land grabbing and deforestation of farmland in Brazil. SUNY New Paltz Sociology Professor Brian Obach has been involved with TIAA Divest since last November, and was the sponsor of the first resolution passed in the state. He said he’s been receiving more and more requests to help bring proposals to universities in New York, a sign that their movement is gaining traction. According to the investment search platform Fossil Free Funds, TIAA has invested $8.42 billion in the fossil fuel industry. They are also an investor for Cricket Valley Energy Center — who uses fracked natural gas to create electrical energy. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process of extracting natural gases and fossil fuels from the ground, and also contributes to air and drinking water pollution. According to a statement from TIAA last September, when the company invested in Cricket Valley in 2014, they were supporting natural gas as “bridge fuel” to more renewable energy. They said that they have explored the idea of selling their stake of Cricket Valley, but deals for their investment have not been fruitful enough to benefit their customers. “Sustainability is integral to our investment process and success on behalf of retirement savers and is aligned with our commitment to reduce the impact of climate change,” a TIAA spokesperson said to The Statesman. Although fossil fuels may make up only about 5.5% of TIAA’s investment, that hasn’t stopped TIAA Divest from criticizing the company, and introducing and passing resolutions across the state. “TIAA’s relationship with the climate crisis, I would say, is not trivial,” Johnston said. “I think that this at least brings together some stakeholders, gets us in communication, hopefully generates energy and galvanizes us in the future to have even more difficult questions — questions about inequality and environmental justice.” TIAA’s Divest’s co-organizer and environmental activist Iris Marie Bloom said she created the organization after she discovered TIAA’s investment in Cricket Valley during a demonstration against the power plant’s construction. “Our goal is of course to protect the climate, but we are also working on social justice, indigionous rights and fighting environmental racism in very specific ways by targeting investment that TIAA is funding right now,” Bloom said. Bloom is referring to TIAA investments in companies such as the Adani Group, a coal energy company that is currently in a legal battle to build a mine on Australian indigenous land, prompting a #StopAdani protesting movement. TIAA is also an investor in Enbridge, a Canadian energy company who are currently in the process of building the Line 3 pipeline — which would carry heavily polluting oil sands — through Anishinaabe indigenous land. “It’s really kind of disappointing and surprising that TIAA has not gotten on board with this — has not seen the writing on the wall that this is going to happen,” Obach said. “It is imperative that they get out in front and divest immediately.”
TO GO GREEN, WE MUST TAKE SMALLER STEPS IN LEGISLATION BY ANYA MARQUARDT
Anya Marquardt is a sophomore English major with a minor in journalism. Although more aggressive climate legislation is needed, the road to a greener future must begin small and progress to a larger agenda. After all, we have just exited an administration that engaged in a rollback of climate policy and environmental regulations. While greenhouse gas emissions decreased in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the drop will not be as effective due to the relaxation of these policies. The Trump administration used the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason to allow large factories to emit more greenhouse gases without getting fined or subjected to breaking any environmental rules and regulations. Many of the lawmakers who backed legislation in support of climate action are still in office, so we should concentrate on finding common ground before taking a more radical stance. The Green New Deal has had a long and interesting history over the past 15 years. The Green New Deal, which was first suggested during the financial crisis of 2007-2008, has been one of the most divisive issues in American politics. Two groups formed during this time with the goal of lobbying the Green New Deal, with one in the United States and the United Kingdom. The UK-based group gained traction when they published a proposal detailing their plan in July 2008. Several other groups, including The Green Party of England and Wales and the United Nations Environment Programme, threw their support behind the Green New Deal in the following years. Nearly 10 years after its original formation, a youth activist group called the Sunrise Movement held a sit-in outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office after the 2018 midterm elections. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined the sit-in and eventually supported their proposal. In doing so, she helped to create the framework for what we now know as the Green New Deal. So, why is it so contentious? To begin with, it seeks legislation on a scale that no other climate bill has even attempted. Some main points include reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2050 (meaning we must absorb the same amount of carbon that we are releasing into the atmosphere), creating millions of high-paying jobs in the “clean energy division,” pushing to end environmental racism and ensuring that clean air, water and healthy food are viewed as fundamental human rights. It would take the greatest form of unity
between political parties for a bill like this to pass. Many of the issues with the Green New Deal are coming from a few different places: bipartisan politics, the economy and blatant disbelief of climate change. An alarming number of people either believe that climate change is not real, or that it is a “future problem.” Over 100 current members of Congress have been skeptical of climate change or have outwardly denied its existence. Only one of these members does not belong to the Republican Party, which has strongly opposed the bill since Ocasio-Cortez proposed it in 2018. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has called the bill a “radical vision for humanity” and has spread false information about the bill, claiming that the deal would “confiscate cars.” The lack of bipartisan support for such a prominent bill is a huge roadblock in both passing the bill and in gaining public support for it. There have also been differing viewpoints on the economic impact of the Green New Deal. The Wall Street Journal Chief Economics Commentator Greg Ip believes that the ends do not justify the means, given the costs to implement the goals of the Green New Deal. Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, John Cornyn and various others have claimed that it will cost the U.S. approximately $93 trillion, which was estimated by the American Action Forum — a politicallyskewed, right-leaning institute. This is all just another example of how bipartisan politics are hiding the facts that the public has a right to know. Ocasio-Cortez did not give a price estimate when first presenting the plan, but later stated that it would cost at least $10 trillion and acknowledged that this was a hefty price, "I don't think anyone wants to spend that amount of money, it's not a fun number to say, I'm not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... it's just the fact of the scenario," she said. News networks like Fox News have been peddling false information about climate change for years, calling it a “climate hoax.” According to a 2020 poll from Yale University, half of Fox News viewers believe that natural occurrences have caused the current climate crisis instead of human activity. Based on its current demands, I don't believe the Green New Deal can pass. Too many members of Congress have openly voiced their disapproval of the bill in its current form. Bipartisan support for the bill is almost non-existent, with Democratic Party support overwhelmingly in favor of it. In order to address climate change, legislation must be passed. While I agree with many of the proposals outlined in the Green New Deal, I do not believe that such a bill will be passed soon. But even if we don’t agree with all the Green New Deal proposes, we can see it as a positive step toward solving one of the world’s most pressing problems. Climate change is not a “future crisis,” as some people believe. As the Green New Deal states, climate change is already affecting our world; we won't be able to deter or slow it down unless we take drastic measures to fix it soon.
HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS BEING REIMAGINED IN FICTION BY JUSTIN CHASSIN
Justin Chassin is a senior computer science and applied math and statistics dual major. The climate clock is ticking down: There are now around six years before we reach an irreversible climate catastrophe. Tick. Tick. Tick. We race against time as carbon dioxide emissions continue to destroy the atmosphere. In spite of our limited window, 215 out of 500 U.S. companies on the S&P Index Fund have no set standards for reducing emissions. Many companies tout their commitment to combating pollution, yet they have no clear plans for execution. The oil industry has historically blocked initiatives that tackle climate change, rather than allocating resources to renewable energy programs. Companies such as ExxonMobil are on trial for acknowledging the threats of climate change decades ago, but not taking any accountability for their part in contributing to the crisis. They instead have spent millions on marketing campaigns to mislead the public about their contributions to the cause. Although it may come as a surprise to some, our generation is being impacted as we speak. A child born today faces health risks to their immune systems from environmental pollutants, along with long-term damage from heightened temperatures and air pollution. We have seen an increase in wildfires, especially in California, directly caused by the Earth’s rising temperature. At a time when profit is more important than the preservation of the environment, fiction is powerful in not only visualizing the future but framing conversations to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Great works of climate fiction, such as “New York 2140,” speculate new realities where readers can envision a future shaped by the accelerated effects of climate change. One challenge we currently face with understanding climate change is that it can sound abstract for many people who have not witnessed its effects. The imminent threat right in front of us can appear like a problem that is years away. Therefore, we feel comforted thinking that the detrimental long-term effects are in the far future. Climate fiction or cli-fi transforms an abstract future into a concrete reality. This is accomplished through rich stories that dive into how characters’ daily lives are impacted by climate change. Through experiencing a new yet familiar world through the characters’ eyes, we get to see how climate change could impact our own day-to-day lives. This contextualizes future conditions in a more powerful way than statistics. “New York 2140,” for example, imagines a New York City where sea levels have risen 50 feet, roads are replaced with canals and sky bridges connect buildings. We see characters navigate through an uncanny world of bustle and power dynamics, where humankind has to deal with continuously rising waters. We also see how climate change exacerbates inequalities — lowerincome neighborhoods struggle underwater, while higher-income ones live unaffected in skyscrapers. The novel includes an omniscient character called “the citizen,” who recounts the history of destructive pulses — stages in which sea levels rose — that led to a new Manhattan. Through this history, we receive warnings about what happens when people in a capitalist society say that they can’t pay the price for survival because it is not cost-effective. As the climate crisis worsens, it is critical that we take action, no matter how costly it may be. As predicted by climate fiction, how we react to the crisis now will decide whether humankind will be able to solve the problem of climate change or will have to struggle for survival in the future.
RAISING ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS THROUGH ART: A CHAT WITH ANNEMARIE WAUGH BY MELNIE NAVARRO
On April 10, the Paul W. Zuccaire Gallery held an environmentally themed presentation with guest artist Annemarie Waugh, whose work is currently on display at the Zuccaire Gallery in Four: MFA Thesis Exhibition 2021. It was followed by a presentation from Evan Joo, the Alumni Representative and Social Media Manager of Friends of Ashley Schiff Preserve. Hidden in plain sight, the Ashley Schiff Preserve is the 26-acre nature preserve on Stony Brook University campus, named after a beloved political science Professor Ashley Schiff. Schiff joined the faculty in 1965 as an early conservationist and expert on the politics of forest management. He was extremely involved on campus outside the classroom. Schiff demonstrated his passion for conservation through instances such as when he allegedly chained himself to a threatened tree, the tallest conifer on campus at the time that was about to be toppled by a bulldozer. Schiff also helped prevent the erosion of Roth Pond by planting azaleas along its eroded banks alongside the students. Schiff passed unexpectedly in the fall of 1969, leaving a gap in the hearts of many on campus. Over 500 students attended his funeral service. On Nov. 19, 2020, the Ashley Schiff Preserve celebrated its 51st anniversary. Today it serves as a “living laboratory” and academic research site with many committed to making sure it stays a protected woodland. Through an array of visual art, sculptures, poetry, paintings, text, interactive installations and humor, graduating MFA Studio Artist Annemarie Waugh illuminates environmental awareness and social concerns. The Statesman interviewed Annemarie Waugh about her various inspirations for her art, the inspiration behind some of her paintings, sculptures and stories while also taking a deeper look on her focus behind bringing attention to social and environmental issues by collaborating with and utilizing nature. The Statesman: When did you start creating art out of the environment? Annemarie Waugh: When I lived in the city, I would go to Central Park which is a great park, and the urban environment is different and I was into the graffiti and the posters, the tattered walls. I walked all around the city and I loved it, but when I moved out here it’s different because you’ve got the beaches, the woods and nature [which] is really important. The Statesman: What was the inspiration behind your project “#Shucked”? Annemarie Waugh: It’s about the dying off of the Peconic bay scallops. 90% of them have died off, that was the fall of 2020, and thinking of now, that puts the numbers even worse. Because of rising water temperatures and pollution from runoffs, a lot of species are dying off; forests are being cut down, Long Island is growing in population. My whole thing about the woods was it’s especially relevant during COVID-19 that you need places to walk, and slowly we’ll be left with nothing. I know it’s a worldwide problem, rainforests, mahogany trees are being cut down, trees can be cut down in such a short amount of time and seeing the plastic world we live in, you can’t live without plastic even if you try hard to. It’s really sad and so that has been a big inspiration to a lot of my work. The Statesman: Can you tell me more about the thought process behind “The Developer’s Midnight Fantasy”? Annemarie Waugh: That’s all about how the forest is seemingly knocked down overnight and suddenly a new dorm, or a new car park, or McMansion, because here a lot of areas take the last bit of woods down and throw up a new big and ugly house. “The Barking Mad”, that’s a little sculpture, also a self-portrait. I’m barking mad in a way, but it was also, well I made it from things I found in
nature, and the man-made, and they’re always fighting each other. The tree is kind of barking, and the pink is flagging tape used by construction sites. I use materials from nature with the plastic world, and the two of them are fighting each other. “The Ivy league” was a bit of a play on how schools like Harvard and Yale are Ivy league, and Stony Brook is a stony brook, and it was sort of a play on words. I got the idea of working with ivy, it’s a very invasive plant, and it’s kind of a nod to the architecture here at Stony Brook University, and a play in contrasting. The Statesman: How did you come around to creating “The Flower Power Association”? Annemarie Waugh: I wrote a story about the talking plants in my garden, and I sort of gave the ferns and the Rhododendron and the bunnies living here at the time a voice, and in the story, they couldn’t talk for a week because the neighbors sprayed pesticides. There is that problem in suburban landscapes, using toxic chemicals to keep lawns green and keeping away mosquitoes. I have a completely organic lawn but it has violets growing and dandelions, it’s not completely pristine, but at the same time I can lay on the grass in my lawn and I won’t get covered in chemicals. I often use humor as an entryway into talking about a subject like the Peconic bay scallops story. Lulu, the main character of the story for the scallops, is in a restaurant trying to order the scallops, and she doesn’t understand why she can’t get them, she thinks they’re saving them for some celebrity bash, and they just don’t exist. I just try to write stories that make you think about something. I don’t have answers, I’m not a scientist, I just can bring up the topic and hope that what I create might cause somebody to engage with it, or think about what they spray on their lawn, or think about what’s going in their water. The Statesman: What was the CANvas Food Drive? Annemarie Waugh: I decided during COVID-19, instead of spending money on art supplies, I’d spend money on food so I got in touch with Long Island Cares and the Stony Brook Food Pantry, and had a food drive outside my local Stop & Shop. I collected amazing amounts of food from the local community, and that was really good. In the gallery, I had to turn it into an art show. I’m British so I grew up with all these mad foodstuffs so I decided I’d make colorful labels with British food sayings so people would have something to read in the sculpture and you could go to the gallery, donate a can and pick the label you like and then put it in the show. The Statesman: What was the thought process behind “Bitten”? Annemarie Waugh: That was a mad project. All my life I’ve been a nail-biter, so I wrote a poem about nail-biting, then I researched nail polishes and the crazy names they had like The Tasmanian Devil Made Me Do It!, so I wrote it out in nail polish with the names I liked. Then I kind of made very graphic characters, because, well, nail polish stinks. It’s really bad for you, bad for the environment. Many manicurists are paid very little. At the same time a New York Times article came out which also got me thinking about the chemicals. Endocrine Disrupter is the name of one of the characters because the toxic chemicals can cause disruption; there’s a whole environmental thing about frogs. Again, I’m not a scientist, but it became kind of like an environmental thing but at first glance, you’re drawn in by the color and the characters. So that’s me trying to tackle serious subjects with humor to draw you in and hope it can make you think about things.
Design by Will Shewan, Gabby Pardo, Steven Keehner, Sara Ruberg, Alexa Anderwkavich and Melissa Azofeifa Photos by Brianne Ledda
MAKE EVERY DAY EARTH DAY