Might Need More than Snow Boots to Prepare for the Next Snow Day: Let’s Take a Lesson from Boston

I was born and raised in Southern California. I’m used to the temperate climate, nice sea breeze, and more recently, persistent threats of wildfires and drought. When I moved to Boston in summer 2021 to begin my freshman year at Tufts University, my friends kept asking why I wanted to move so far away.  I kept repeating the same answer: I want to experience seasons. I had this vision of it being nice and warm at the beginning of the school year, gorgeous and orange throughout October, and fun and snowy in December. Instead, I was welcomed to Boston by a hurricane and what felt like the hottest week of my life, a weirdly warm fall season (I will say the colors delivered on my expectations), an abnormally warm December, and then 23.4 inches of snow during the Nor’Easter storm in late January. Needless to say, my expectations did not necessarily coincide with reality. 

The earth’s rising temperature is directly leading to more storms, especially in Massachusetts. Since 1997, Boston has experienced its 10 biggest snowstorms on record. 

According to the EPA, “in the city of Boston alone, the total cost of storm damages during the 21st century could be between $5 and $100 billion, depending on how the city responds to rising sea level.” While the reality of climate change for Bostononians is harsh, this city has responded efficiently and accordingly to this very real threat. 

The city of Boston has been working on a “Climate Ready Boston:” a city wide initiative preparing the coastal city for the long-term effects of climate change. Boston is the “8th most vulnerable among coastal cities worldwide, in the company of New York, New Orleans, and Miami.” Already Boston has dealt with extreme snow, heat, rain, and subsequent flooding. Part of Climate Ready Boston’s plans include accessible open spaces and appropriate infrastructure for coastal/harbor buildings. 

Climate Ready Boston should be a framework for nationwide and global public policy. President Biden re-joined the Paris Climate Accords in February 2021, almost exactly a year ago. However, what real change has the US initiated based on this agreement? As a young adult living in a liberal state and attending a politically left-leaning liberal arts university, my perspective and that of my peers is that rejoining the Accords is an important signal to the global community but has yet to yield concrete results.  The goals of the Paris Climate Accords continue to be pushed back further and the US has yet to take concrete action. In late 2021, almost 200 countries addressed the climate crisis in Glasgow, UK at the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN climate convention (COP26). While this conference is a great step in the right direction, the conference recap states that countries“reaffirmed the continuation of key principles from the Paris Agreement and previous COPs, including multilateralism, and the importance of nature and biodiversity to climate action, as well as human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations, gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.” What is notable about this quote is that it is simply a list. Action has yet to be taken on most of these topics, and the threat of climate change still remains an existential threat to all nations. All cities, especially coastal ones, should follow Boston’s example in actively preparing to live with the long term effects of climate change. This problem isn’t going away, and we must learn to adapt and take action immediately.  

Vaccine Inequality: Doing Our Fair Share

I was extremely excited to come to college to surround myself with those who love school and academic discussion as much as I do. I knew I was in the right place as I spent this entire week actively debating with friends which international relations (IR) theory best describes the world today: realism, liberalism, or constructivism. As I begin my second semester of college and immerse myself in my IR major, I find that I am not only learning new factual information but also how to think differently about contemporary events. I have been particularly impressed by how my IR studies enable me to see world events through a new lens, specifically the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

As I continue to think about COVID, my new IR-based framework has allowed me to approach issues from a global perspective. This pandemic provides a valuable case study for evaluating both national and multinational policies in the face of a worldwide threat. Specifically, in examining the response of the United States to COVID-19, it seems clear that the US has acted in many cases from a strictly nationalist, indeed even isolationist, perspective. This nationalist approach has not only endangered our own domestic political climate but also shortchanged other countries that depend on the United States for aid and leadership. Indeed, by taking a strictly nationalistic rather than a global approach to the COVID-19 threat, US leaders have limited our responses at home and contributed to the global perpetuation of this seemingly never ending pandemic. 

South Africa first discovered the Omicron variant on November 24, 2021. They were transparent about their scientific findings with the global community, rushing out the news of their research. Instead of applauding them for alerting the world and putting us in a position to proactively collaborate with them to contain the virus, the United States cut off travel to South Africa, essentially exacerbating the personal tolls of COVID with financial ones. 

However, this response of putting our country and citizens first is not unique to the United States, as is reflected by poor vaccine distribution worldwide. Malta Murthy, the World Bank’s Vice President for Human Development, stated, “The situation that we see right now is absolutely unacceptable, because a large part of the world remains unvaccinated and this is a danger for all of us.” Raka Banerjee, host of The Development Podcast from the World Bank Group, says that “1.1% of people living in low-income countries have received even one dose of a vaccine… 84% of all doses that have been administered so far have all gone to people in high and upper-middle-income countries. And in comparison, looking at the percentage of doses that have been administered in low-income countries, it’s a shockingly low 0.3%.” Given these alarming statistics, the real issue the international community should be focusing on is vaccine inequality, rather than first-world concerns over mask mandates and gym closures.

In developed countries like the United States, the surplus of good vaccines reflects a population of citizens who either are vaccinated and don’t need them or, for a sizable minority, don’t want them. The surplus of vaccine orders by developed countries creates a deficit in vaccines for underdeveloped countries, whose citizens are woefully undervaccinated. Data collected at Duke University shows that “the US paid for enough vaccines for twice its population, the UK paid for enough for four times its population, and Canada for five times its population.” We greatly overestimated the number of vaccines our population would need, and we haven’t effectively allocated leftover vaccines to countries that require them. “In the U.S. alone, there could be a vaccine surplus of over 1 billion doses by the end of 2021. With this surplus— and additional vaccine production for 2022— it would be quite feasible to achieve the goal set by the World Health Organization of vaccinating at least 40 percent of the population in every country.” That plan comes much closer to achieving more widespread vaccination than the planned G7 donation of 1 billion COVID vaccines, given that the World Health Organization estimates it will take around 11 billion COVID doses to vaccinate the world. The United States could play a critical global role in helping to organize and drive this donation of surplus vaccines to countries most in need of them.

President Biden’s foreign policy centers around repairing alliances and putting the United States back on the world stage as a global leader. To date, the Biden administration has exercised only limited leadership in directing a global COVID response; much of the effort has been focused on domestic recovery in face of the persistent pandemic. As we are just starting to see reports of a lessening hold of Omicron in the US, we urge the Biden administration to take this moment to broaden its efforts to focus on the global management of COVID. Hundreds of millions in lesser developed countries are in desperate need of increased support for COVID management, and by turning his attention to the global stage, Biden could recover some desperately needed momentum as a world leader.