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

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

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

By Abby Wester ’22 

Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

Biden Announces John Kerry as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate

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

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

By Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Ugly Truth About Cosmetics

Image courtesy of Pxhere

Image courtesy of Pxhere

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Weekly Climate News

November 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Controversial Wolf Restoration Proposition Passed by Colorado Voters

Image courtesy of Flickr.

Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Environmental Costs of Worldwide Food Production Systems

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

By Helen Gloege ’23 

Staff Writer


The Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature rise below 2 C above pre-industrial levels and limit temperature increase to 1.5 C, will be hard if not impossible to reach without changes to the worldwide food production system, according to new research from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford in England. As the food industry continues to grow, food-related emissions are expected to double by 2050, potentially heating the planet more than 1.5 C by the 2060s, and close to 2 C by the end of the century.

A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that 37 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from food production systems, including emissions from transportation and packaging. The emissions come from direct sources such as carbon dioxide, methane and other planet-warming gases. There are also indirect sources such as land clearing and deforestation, both of which allow for agricultural advancements and grazing. In addition, fertilizers, the cultivation of rice and flooded paddies have contributed to these numbers. 

Emissions for carbon-intensive sectors have been decreasing as clean technology is more widely adopted worldwide. Farming has received less attention from policymakers than other greenhouse gas producers, even though it is estimated that half of all habitable land is currently used for agriculture purposes. Agriculture also accounts for 70 percent of freshwater withdrawal. It is estimated that a majority of the global ocean and freshwater pollution is caused by agriculture. 

Another development in food production that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions is monocropping, the agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same plot of land. This process uses up all the nutrients from the earth, leaving the soil weak and unable to support healthy plant growth. This often forces farmers to use chemical fertilizers to encourage plant growth. Monocropping also fails to provide diversity to diets or ecosystems.

In animal agriculture, concentrated animal feeding operations or factory farms are used to maximize production while minimizing costs. The process involves intensive methods in which poultry, pigs, fish or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions in a small, enclosed area. These farms result in excess animal waste and have been linked to high contents of nitrogen and other nutrients in manure runoff that cause dead zones in downstream waterways. These methods of food production use finite resources without replenishing them. 

Leakages of toxic waste also come from concentrated animal feeding operations. Overapplying manure in fields emits nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. This application of manure is carried out to avoid manure leakage into lagoons. A manure lagoon or anaerobic lagoon is a human-made basin filled with animal waste. These lagoons have been shown to harbor and emit substances that can have adverse environmental and health effects. The most prevalent gases emitted by the lagoons are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane and carbon dioxide. Overflow of these lagoons releases harmful substances into the surrounding land or water and may include antibiotics, estrogens, bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals and protozoa. In North Carolina, after Hurricane Florence in 2018, 38 manure lagoons had been structurally damaged, breached or overtopped with nine more lagoons inundated with surface water. When lagoons overflow, untreated waste flows into local waters. 

New advances in sustainable agriculture are rooted in regenerative practices. This means that farmers invest in the land and adopt a holistic ecosystem approach. A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes following better land practices, switching to less meat-intensive diets and eliminating food waste as global priorities. They also recommend stopping deforestation, limiting greenhouse gas-emitting fertilizers and raising crops that add more carbon to soil. Other goals involve increasing crop yields per hectare and switching to healthy calorie supplies based on plant crops. Dietary changes would mainly need to occur in richer countries where the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is well above average health recommendations. This allows for a reduction in the consumption of unhealthy, high-carbon foods in large quantities. If this is achieved, it would allow poorer nations to feed their populations better and would increase their consumption of animal products without exhausting the global carbon budget. 

Techniques including organic, free-range, low-input, holistic and biodynamic practices would allow for agricultural sustainability and mimic natural ecological processes. In reality, this would mean farmers minimizing water, encouraging healthy soil by planting fields with different crops, integrating croplands with livestock grazing and avoiding pesticide use by nurturing organisms that control crop-destroying pests. The process of sustainability will also allow for just treatment of farmworkers and food pricing that allows farmers to have a livable income.

Earlier this month, health professionals from the U.K. called for a tax on meat to entice people to change their consumption habits, but taxes are not the only solution. Health professionals explained that meat, tobacco, alcohol, sugar and fuel should be taxed because of the negative impact they have on human health and the environment. Currently, meat is cheaper than most fruits and vegetables, so a tax could be used to increase the availability and affordability of healthy, plant-based foods. This would also allow for sustainable foods to be the easy and affordable choice for those with lower incomes who must often choose meat, the less expensive option, over pricey fruits and vegetables.


Plant Breeding Adapts Seeds to Current and Future Climate Conditions

Image courtesy of WikiMedia.

Image courtesy of WikiMedia.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23 

Staff Writer 


The impact of climate change can be seen in everything around us, from the loss of habitats to the migration of animals and plant species — even the crops planted and growing on farms. Climate change has already destroyed many agricultural lands through frequent floods, increased forest fires and intensified droughts. This is made more worrisome by research concluding that crop species are becoming sensitive to the increase in average surface temperatures due to global warming. Wheat, which is considered the foundation of life in much of the world, is predicted to suffer the most from rising temperatures, and countries where it is predominantly grown will be the most impacted and least equipped to cope. Rising temperatures are likely to impact more species upon which life depends. A possible solution that has emerged is modifying plant species to adapt to the climate, a practice known as climate-adapted plant breeding. 

Climate-adapted plant breeding uses existing or old varieties of plants to breed new varieties so they will be adapted to current and future climate conditions. Recently, a research team from the Technical University of Munich was able to show that material from gene banks can be used to improve traits in the maize plant using a combination of new molecular and statistical methods. A prerequisite for this is the preservation of old and present species through proper storage and seed handling. Seed banks, or seed vaults, have emerged as a solution that preserves genetic diversity by providing the necessary conditions for the longevity of seeds. Seeds are stored in low temperatures that keep them dormant until they are needed for replanting.

One of the largest seed vaults is the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, located on the Spitsbergen island of Norway above the Arctic Circle. It is frequently called the Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault because it contains over a million seed types from all over the world and, should a global catastrophe occur, the vault’s collection would allow for a theoretical restart to world agriculture. In case the regional diversity of wheat, rice or any other food plant is destroyed by war, climate change or natural disaster, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault holds a backup. The facility was made to withstand a nuclear blast, and other structural improvements have been made over the years. 

More and more species are continuously added to the vault’s collection. Modifying varieties of organisms to climate change has already been successful, giving some researchers hope that this could be possible in the seed world. For example, modifying coral reefs to withstand higher temperatures and genetically modifying plant species have both been successful projects. In these cases, the change in temperature a species adapts to is limited, but in the case of climate change, rises in temperature are likely to be long-term and continual.

The Future of Climate Policy: Can Biden Do It?

Pictured above: President-elect Joseph Biden Jr. Image courtesy of Flickr.

Pictured above: President-elect Joseph Biden Jr. Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer


After many grueling days spent counting absentee ballots, Joe Biden was announced president-elect of the United States on Saturday, Nov. 7. Biden’s win is generally seen by climate policy experts as a step in the right direction, but the efficacy and strength of his environmental policies have still yet to be determined. 

In the Democratic primary, Biden was seen as one of the least progressive candidates when it came to climate. But when Biden became the candidate for the Democratic Party, he ran on a platform that prioritized combating climate change in the hopes of rallying his base. He has since proposed the most ambitious climate plan to ever be released by a major U.S. presidential candidate. 

The political alignment of the Senate might challenge Biden’s ability to implement his plan. The Senate has been majority Republican since 2015. As of today, the political divide of the Senate is still in question, with Republicans holding 50 seats, Democrats holding 46 and independents holding two. Two more Senate seats are still up in the air in Georgia, where a runoff election will occur in January. The results of that election will either create a Republican majority or a tie between the parties. 

A majority Republican Senate is traditionally seen as an enemy to climate policy and could block the legislation promised by Biden during his campaign. If any votes the Senate takes are divided 50 against 50, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will vote to break the tie.

If Biden is able to follow through on  his climate promises, there may still be pressure and resistance from the political left. Biden’s moderate approach to climate in the primaries, along with his allegiance to fracking, have not left the minds of climate activists. Groups such as the Sunrise Movement have already spoken about their high expectations of Biden and are ready to be critical of his climate policies.

No matter the political makeup of the Senate or the hastiness of climate activists, Biden will have his work cut out for him when it comes to climate policy. President Donald Trump has spent the last four years disregarding climate science, reversing environmental regulations and, most recently, removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Biden’s response to climate change will likely displease many Americans given the divided politics of the nation. Climate change, however, will not wait for political disagreements as it continues to ravage our world.