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

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

By Abby Wester ’22 

Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

On the Ballot: Climate Change

Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Stress Disorder and How To Deal With It

By Nancy Jiang ‘23

Staff Writer

If you are stressed or feeling anxious about the election results, you might be experiencing election stress disorder. (Yes, it’s a real thing.) 

According to the American Psychological Association, 68 percent of Americans claim that the 2020 U.S. presidential election is a major source of stress in their lives, more so than the 2016 election when only 52 percent of Americans reported feeling stressed. The stress level is especially high for specific groups such as African Americans, who saw an increase from 46 percent in 2016 to 71 percent in 2020, and adults experiencing chronic illnesses. Although the exact reason remains unknown, 25 percent of college students reported clinically significant stress symptoms related to the election in 2016, meaning these symptoms were so severe that they needed to see a doctor. 

Uncertainty is considered a major cause of election stress disorder. People worry not only about which candidate will win but also what the future of the nation will look like, especially in an election between two candidates who are extremely divisive. It’s hard to make predictions as the country would be moving in opposite directions based on either one’s administrative plans. 

“No matter who wins, people will protest,” Allison Benguiat ’22 said. “One thing is for sure: the unrest of the crowd.” 

Additionally, international students’ experiences in the U.S. will be hugely affected by the outcome of the election, as they must face additional unknown factors such as the future policies for student visas and U.S. work authorization. “I’m worried about my visa expiring. That will stop me from coming back to Mount Holyoke,” Susan Wang ’23, an international student from China, said. “I hope the pandemic gets more under control after the election. As much as I miss the campus and hope to return, the increasing number of positive cases makes me hesitate.”

Some students appear more comfortable with uncertainty. “We’ll have to figure out what to do based on the new policies,” said Kelly Li ’23, who is also from China, “But as for now, we can do nothing about it. We’ll have to take it as what it will be, so I’m not stressed now.” 

As of Nov. 4, Democratic nominee Joseph Biden had won 50.3 percent of votes while President Donald Trump had won 48.1 percent, according to the Associated Press. 

Li’s strategy of “taking it as it will be” is also suggested by the APA to help deal with election stress disorder. Distracting yourself from constant worrying might also help alleviate anxiety. Watch a few episodes of your favorite TV show, talk to family and friends or focus on schoolwork (although that might cause another type of stress). If that doesn’t work, you can also talk about your concerns with someone from Mount Holyoke’s Counseling Service online.

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.

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.

NEPA and EPA Regulations Relaxed Under Trump Administration Have Environmental Implications

by Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

This summer saw the slashing of multiple environmental policies by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce time and costs associated with energy and infrastructure development in the United States. These changes met resistance from environmental groups and became the subject of political controversy. Two environmental regulations that have recently been rolled back are the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule on methane leaks in fossil fuel production.

NEPA is a piece of environmental legislation that requires all major federal actions to be assessed on their environmental, social and economic impact before implementation. “Major federal actions” cover a wide range of activities, from infrastructure projects such as building roads and bridges, to the implementation of federal policies and programs. Under NEPA, all such projects must draft environmental impact statements, explore ways to avoid negative environmental, economic and social impacts, consider long-term effects of the project and identify permanent resources needed to complete the project. These actions required by NEPA have often been criticized for causing unnecessary delays in the execution of projects, as they can be time- and resource-consuming. 

The Trump administration’s new rule changes key definitions within NEPA to reduce its scope in an effort to increase the efficiency of federal projects. The new rule narrows the definition of “major federal actions” to exclude projects that require “minimal Federal funding or minimal Federal involvement.” The definition was previously given a broad interpretation, so the new rule releases many projects from needing to follow NEPA. The new rule also dictates that agencies are only responsible for effects that are “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives,” meaning that agencies are not responsible for negative effects that would occur in the far future or the indirect effects of their projects.

 Concerns regarding changes to NEPA are not only centered around the potential for negative environmental effects of projects to go unnoticed, but also around the speeding up of project planning that will reduce opportunities for communities to voice their opinions about the projects. As of Aug. 28, more than 20 states, including Massachusetts, have sued the Trump administration over changes to this policy.

Another environmental regulation that has been rolled back is a rule on methane leaks created by the Obama administration. The rule required fossil fuel companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane gas from oil and gas wells. The regulation would have required many oil and gas wells to be retrofitted with the proper technology for methane detection, which is both costly and time-consuming for fossil fuel companies. EPA estimates predict that the rollback will save these companies $100 million through 2030 and lead to 850,000 tons of methane being released into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that stays in the air for less time than other GHGs like CO2, but has 80 times the heat-trapping capability of CO2 during its first 20 years in the atmosphere. The gas is released by energy production plants, landfills and livestock. 

The EPA has also reported that emissions from methane leaks have stabilized in recent years, meaning that the regulation may not necessarily have a significant impact on emissions, but these reports have been challenged by data collection within the scientific community. Recent findings are in agreement that atmospheric methane levels are higher than what was previously reported by the EPA. Discrepancies between EPA and independent data collection come from the EPA’s use of a mix of self-reported data from fossil fuel companies and on-site testing of methane leaks. The discovery of higher-than-expected methane levels means that policies aiming to curb emissions of the gas are more important than ever in slowing the onset of climate change. 

Major fossil fuel companies have decided to continue following the regulation in order to avoid damaging their public image and aid in their promotion of natural gas as a “green” alternative to oil. If natural gas were to be associated with high amounts of methane emissions, it would undermine companies’ efforts to promote it. 

The methane rule was part of a set of three regulations created by the Obama administration in an attempt to slow climate change. The others targeted CO2 emissions from cars and coal burning and have previously been rolled back by the Trump administration.