HONG KONG — While many countries have been devastated by the pandemic, Hong Kong has done fairly well in containing the spread of the virus. In total, the country has only accumulated approximately 12,000 cases within a population of 7.5 million. 

However, the vaccination program that began in late February has been underwhelming, despite an abundance of supply, with merely 10.7% of the population receiving the first jab as of April 23. Efficacy issues associated with the Sinovac vaccine and general distrust toward the local and Chinese government has led to the poor vaccination rate.

Hong Kong is not known as an anti-vaccine city. Citizens are generally aware of public health issues and willing to participate in mass vaccination programs, especially after the SARS outbreak in 2003 took almost 300 Hongkongers’ lives and dampened the city’s economy. Between late 2019 and mid 2020, an estimated number of 1.2 million Hong Kong residents received flu vaccinations under government programs. 

Since February, Hong Kongers have been able to choose between two COVID-19 vaccines: Sinovac, developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech and endorsed by the Hong Kong government, and BioNTech, jointly developed by American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech. However, efficacy issues with Sinovac has made the vaccine-accepting public more resistant toward taking the Chinese vaccine.

Sinovac, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech, began its Phase III clinical trial in July 2020. However, the company has not made its development process transparent. Normally, vaccine companies publish data from their Phase III clinical trial in peer-reviewed journals before obtaining approval from authorities. Sinovac has not published details on its vaccine in a journal. In contrast, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna released their Phase III trial data in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020.

In January, before the vaccine was rolled out in Hong Kong and other countries, Sinovac was reported to have an efficacy rate of about 50%, according to Butantan Institute, a Brazilian medical research center. Chile’s recent vaccination program with Sinovac boosted the estimated rate to 56.5%, raising it slightly above WHO’s efficacy requirement of 50%. In comparison, BioNTech is reported to have about 90% efficacy rate, while AstraZeneca’s vaccine is estimated at approximately 75%.

Another concern with Sinovac is its efficacy within elderly populations. During its Phase III trial in Brazil, Sinovac did not gather enough data for its effect on individuals over the age of 60. Only 413 participants over 60 completed two doses in the clinical trial, not enough to have statistical implication.

The company has even released a disclaimer about the lack of data on elderly individuals. According to Pak-leung Ho, leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese government does not recommend the Sinovac vaccine for individuals over 60. He suggests that Hong Kong can learn from Macau’s vaccination policy, where individuals over 60 will need to consult medical professionals before taking the vaccine.

Currently, Sinovac is being distributed in countries across all continents, including Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Many government officials from these countries have reassured their public about the Sinovac’s effectiveness, including Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia’s science minister who posted on Twitter after taking the first shot of the vaccine. Singapore, however, has let its Sinovac supply sit in storage after receiving them in February, citing the lack of data as the reason the government has not approved the vaccine yet.

Despite all this, regulators approved the vaccine for use in Hong Kong in February of this year. Local media outlets cast doubt over the rushed approval process, though the government defended its decision and dismissed doubts as a “misunderstanding of the mechanism for authorising vaccines for emergency use.” 

Many citizens in Hong Kong remained wary of Sinovac. In a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in January, fewer than 30% of respondents considered Sinovac an acceptable vaccine, compared to a 56.5% acceptance rate for the BioNTech vaccine, the other vaccine option in Hong Kong.  

Another major reason behind Hong Kong’s low vaccination rate is the public’s deep distrust of government. Since the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam instigated mass protests over an extradition bill two years ago, her approval ratings have plummeted to historical lows. Her government is also widely regarded as pro-Beijing, especially amid recent electoral reforms where only “patriots” are permitted to run for office.

Residents are particularly skeptical about Lam’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Chinese manufactured Sinovac. When an alliance of hospital employees warned older residents about Sinovac’s lack of sufficient trial data, Lam slammed the group for spreading misinformation. In another case, a private clinic was dropped from the government inoculation programme after it promoted BioNTech over Sinovac and cited their efficacy rates as evidence. 

So far, 15 people have died after receiving vaccines in Hong Kong, 12 of whom received Sinovac jabs. Health officials have repeatedly stressed that the deaths are not linked to the vaccines, though the public remains highly skeptical.

“According to the government, none of the deaths are related to the vaccine,” Hong Kong resident Belinda Lin told the Associated Press. “Most of the patients had cardiovascular conditions, so there must be some association, but the government seems to be trying to dissociate it.”

In March, the government suspended BioNTech shots for two weeks after a batch was discovered to have defective packaging. Authorities threw away the batch, a decision that several medical professionals questioned and likened to destroying evidence.

“I am quite surprised that the Hong Kong authorities said that they had already discarded all the problematic bottles,” said Alvin Chan, a co-chairman of the advisory committee on communicable diseases and a council member of the Medical Association. “To investigate the problem, at least these faulty bottles need to be examined meticulously by the company.”

These incidents have all raised concerns about a political agenda not just behind the vaccination drive, but the government’s endorsement of the Sinovac vaccine. 

As Ramon Yuen, a district councilor from the city’s pro-democracy opposition, told Bloomberg Quint, “many people are saying the government has its own agenda, and this will impact the effectiveness of public health policy.” 

By the end of March, the number of people who scheduled, but skipped, their Sinovac appointments stood at around 20%, compared with a 5% no-show rate for BioNTech appointments.

Recently, the vaccination drive has seen a big boost as the government said it would ease social-distancing restrictions for inoculated people. Bookings on the day of the announcement jumped up to nearly double the number on the previous day. Around 13,500 people made online reservations for the BioNTech vaccine on the first day of the announcement, compared with 3,300 who signed up for Sinovac.

Nonetheless, no matter the incentives offered, as long a lack of public confidence in not just the vaccines, but the government, remains high, the vaccination drive in Hong Kong will stay sluggish.

The post Vaccination Campaigns in Hong Kong Struggle to Gain Public Trust appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

The post The Biden Administration Ought to Reduce Meat Consumption appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

For example, in Eritrea, a country in East Africa, over 80% of the population lacks access to drinking water. Other countries with similarly staggering numbers include Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia. Essentially, the world is suffering from a global water crisis. 

People around the world are not able to access both the quantity and quality of water necessary to carry out basic human needs, such as cleaning, bathing, drinking and growing food. This crisis has been recognized by the United Nations and was made a Sustainable Development Goal in 2015. The SDGs serve as a “shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” As SDG 6, the UN hopes to provide clean water and sanitation to all by 2030. Off track to hit this goal, the UN introduced the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework last year to speed up action.

According to USAID, women and children in developing countries walk an average of 3.5 miles a day to fetch potable water. This accessibility challenge exacerbates water vulnerability for millions of people, especially considering that most of the water gathered in developing countries comes from a polluted source, contaminated with raw sewage, surface run-off, industrial effluents, and feces. The surface water contains disease-causing pathogens, such as cholera, typhoid fever and diarrhoea, as well as dangerous toxins like arsenic and lead. Children are particularly vulnerable, considering that 5,000 children die daily from waterborne illness and issues of sanitation. Many of these children already suffer from malnutrition and other diseases. 

The situation is expected to worsen as the global population rises and the water supply falls. According to the World Health Organization, by 2025, half of the world’s population is expected to be in regions labeled “water-stressed.” This is detrimental, due to the impact of water scarcity and water stress on basic sanitation and public health. As demonstrated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe and clean water is critical because “handwashing with soap is one of the most effective ways to limit the spread” according to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Additionally, water stress impacts different vulnerable groups to varying extents. This crisis will undoubtedly heighten issues of gender inequality, as many risks fall disproportionately on women. Due to cultural expectations, women and girls are responsible for fetching water in  80% of households with off water premises. As a result, women and girls walk an average of four miles with a 44 pound jerry can to their nearest water source. For parts of the world that suffer from water scarcity, particularly in urban areas, common water sources include surface water along riverbeds, hand-pump boreholes that extract water from the ground, and kiosks at the water source where water is bought from informal vendors. This necessary, yet brutal, walk to retrieve water occurs daily, despite health or weather conditions. 

This daily task is time consuming, limiting the ability of women and girls to do other work or tend to their families. The journey also poses a physical challenge; girls as young as 10-years-old and pregnant women often complete this arduous task. Around the world, women walk a combined 200 million hours daily. 

Women are subject to safety hazards when they collect water. According to a study led by Northwestern University, at least 13% of women reported physical injuries while collecting water, due to falls, traffic accidents, animal attacks and violence. While hauling water, women were twice as likely to get hurt than men. They are also at risk of sexual and physical assault during their trips. 

In Science Daily, journalist Vanessa Offiong reported on the story of Hasiya, a 16-year-old girl from Nasarawa, Nigeria, who left one evening on her 40-minute route to retrieve water. On her return, she noticed a group of boys shouting at her, and because speeding up was nearly impossible given the weight of her filled bucket, The boys circled and kicked Hasiya to the ground, with no one around to help.

Offiong shares another woman’s story of rape while fetching water from the Uke River. The shame surrounding the rape forced to leave the community because she was married. She says the community has stopped reporting rapes to the police, and women walk in groups during the morning. In other cases of assault in areas with sources of groundwater and informal vendors, it has been reported that men operating the pumps have demanded more than payment, abusing their powers to force women into sex to access water.

As UNICEF notes, women and children are paying with lost time and lost opportunities, such as an education. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that, “a one hour reduction in the time spent to walk to the water source increases girls’ school enrollment rates by about 10 percentage points in Yemen, and by about 12 percentage points in Pakistan.” Schooling is critical for development and future economic and social mobility; for each additional year in primary school can increase girls’ future wages by 20%. Girls’ schooling can also help the global economy, for it is predicted that if India increased its enrollment for girls in primary school by one percent, gross domestic product would rise by around $5 billion.

Women are also disproportionately affected by sanitation issues. Over two billion people lack access to improved sanitation, such as proper toilets and handwashing, due to a deficiency of clean water. Globally, two out of five people lack handwashing facilities. Many are forced to practice open defecation, use unimproved facilities or forced to share sanitation facilities. Womens’ increased hygienic needs due to menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth are not met. One out of 10 girls in Africa drops out of school by 8th grade due to menstruation challenges, resulting from a lack of bathrooms and proper sanitation. A study conducted in Bangladesh, where only around 35% of the population has access to safe, uncontaminated drinking water, showed a separate toilet could increase girl enrolment in school by 15%. This is a global issue; a survey done by the government of India found that only 53% of government schools had a separate and functioning toilet for girls. 

A lack of water to properly sanitize also spreads disease, which disproportionately affects women, who have higher exposure to waterborne illnesses through domestic work, such as collecting water, washing clothes and cooking. Women who are pregnant are at increased risk, for over 44 million pregnant women have sanitation-related hookworm, which causes maternal anemia and leads to preterm births. This contributes to the yearly death toll of around one million women yearly due to unclean childbirth. 

As the global water crisis disproportionately affects women, they are still responsible for the collection and resource management of water within the household, in addition to the removal of wastewater. However, on a larger scale, men typically make decisions over water management and lead communities. Male leadership prevents women from making more educated decisions, as they are frontline water managers who have a unique understanding of current systems, approaches and the effect on the community. 

Clean water has the power to transform communities, reduce rates of disease, help equalize genders and create a more efficient economy. The development of proper infrastructure to collect clean water can be used to benefit communities, allowing for more jobs and less time lost fetching surface water.  

Working toward its goal to provide clean water and sanitation, the UN aims to protect ground water resources such as rivers, eliminate water pollution and increase international cooperation around the issue. Non-profit organizations have focused on building community wells, whether shallow wells that are hand dug or deep wells that are drilled. These wells provide clean groundwater that is closer to home. A World Research Institute study proposed that it would only take 1% of global GDP to give global access to water and reach a state of sustainable water management, which would lead to net benefit, as one dollar invested yields a 6.8 dollar return. 

UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozir emphasized the importance of this goal and the imperative all countries and organizations have to act quickly. 

“It is a moral failure that we live in a world with such high levels of technical innovation and success, but we continue to allow billions of people to exist without clean drinking water or the basic tools to wash their hands,” Bokzir said. 

Without equitable access to clean water, entire regions risk further development. And for the women and girls who are most vulnerable, clean water is imperative to securing basic rights.

The post The Global Water Crisis Heightens Issues of Gender Inequality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disrupting international travel and tourism, these remote countries have suffered greatly from the repercussions of a lack of tourism dollars being injected into their economies. 

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the usual percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP,  from tourism for developing countries is 5%; however, for SIDS, the average share stands at over 20%. This over-reliance on the tourism industry has proven to be a highly fragile aspect of the SIDS economy, as tourism numbers decreased drastically during the pandemic, and so did the revenue. 

The Maldives is an illustrative example of this phenomenon. According to the World Bank, the tourism industry accounts for about 25% of the small Indian Ocean country’s GDP. Combining this factor with the steep decline in tourism due to the pandemic — from around 1.7 million visitors in 2019 to approximately 560,000 in 2020, or about a 66% decline — the country’s GDP contracted an estimated 28% by the end of 2020. 

“As an economy heavily dependent on international tourism, the restrictions on global travel and other protective measures against the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant impact on the Maldives,” President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih told CNBC in a March 2021 interview. 

The Maldives had to close its borders to foreign tourists from March to July of last year. Not only did this trigger the firing of thousands of workers, as tourism revenue quickly declined , but it also directly affected the cash flow of foreign currency that helped the Maldivian Government pay for imports.

According to the Michigan State University, around 60% of the Maldives’ foreign exchange receipts are acquired through foreign tourism spending. These funds are used to buy imports such as petroleum, building materials and around 90% of the country’s food supplies.

According to a recent United Nations Development Program report on the Maldives’ state during the pandemic cited that these imports were drastically affected by the decline in tourism and foreign money being exchanged and used in the country. The same report highlights how the country went from importing around $45 million worth of petroleum in January 2020 to only about less than $10 million by May of the same year. 

This drastic fall in imports, economic activity, employment and overall quality of life in the Maldives highlights how fragile the tourism industry can be if a country is overly reliant on it. As the industry depends on several foreign factors that SIDS, like the Maldives, have virtually no control over, they have found this pandemic to be a “wake up” call to start looking into economic and industry diversification efforts. 

In the Maldives, this led the government to develop diversification plans for investing more in education and youth programs, as well as investment in foreign markets and better worker preparation for Maldivian citizens to incorporate them into the workforce outside of tourism. 

Luckily for the Maldives, its government has managed to keep a steady path towards recovery. The Maldivian authorities managed to cut down on their government spending and swap their monetary arrangements with foreign government banks like the Reserve Bank of India for a value of $400 million. Although tourist numbers are still below average – with around 200,000 foreign visitors arriving at the small nation between January and February 2021, which only accounts for 42% of last year’s numbers during the same period – the country expects to have about 1,000,000 tourist arrivals in 2021, which would lead to an approximate 17% rise in GDP by the end of the year. 

Nonetheless, this ideal scenario that the Maldives has managed to achieve is not the de facto outcome for every SIDS county. Other small island nations around the world have not been as fortunate to have a big enough monetary reserve and quick tourism recovery, such as the Maldives. 

This is the case of Fiji. This Pacific island country depends heavily on the tourism industry, accounting for 40% of its GDP and being directly responsible for employing 150,000 people, or 17% of the population of 880 thousand people. 

According to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, the country’s GDP shrunk by about 21.7% by the end of 2020, highlighting the worst contraction in the nation’s history. This is mostly because the number of tourists who visited the country in 2020 was 75% lower than in 2019. Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said that this also led to 115,000 Fijians, or one-third of the Fijian workforce to be laid off from jobs or have hour cuts due to the failing tourism industry. 

“You can’t suddenly work from home when you earn your paycheck as a scuba instructor, or as a handicraft maker who usually sells to tourists,” said Bainimarama in a press conference in July 2020. “With borders shut around the world, Fijian tourism has come to a halt. Many jobs have still not returned; some may never.”

However, he has a different approach regarding future recovery for his country’s economy. Based on a survey and report by the IFC, diversification might still be in the picture, with efforts to improve education and workforce training programs in sight. However, plans like these are yet to be made official. Ultimately, Bainimarama still sees the tourism industry as Fiji’s main, and arguably, only choice for total recovery. 

“When it comes to COVID, SIDS need resources, not regulations better suited to larger level markets,”  Bainimarama said. “Let’s find opportunity in this crisis, by recognizing how the international community can better support employers and employees who rely on the stewards of small island economies, like tourism, and target support accordingly.”

His primary approach is to increase resources for the country’s development and its tourism industry, rather than veer towards more globalized forms of growth such as the Maldives plans to do with foreign investments. With this current strategy, the Reserve Bank of Fiji estimates that the Fijian economy might return to  pre-pandemic levels until 2023 with a GDP increase of around 14% in 2021, as long as tourism starts to increase steadily to 2019 levels. 

The IFC survey report also highlights that regardless of some financial intervention from the Fijian government, around 74% of businesses surveyed expected to close within five months. This emphasizes how the government’s strategy, although reliable in the long term, has not provided much relief to the Fijian people. Moreover, the report also shows that if no diversification efforts are promptly implemented, the Fijian economy will remain vulnerable to other external factors such as climate change or other financial crashes.

Overall, these two countries pose two fairly different approaches towards economic recovery. While the Maldives has taken a more immediate diversification approach, Fiji — although potentially aiming to diversify, bets more on revitalizing- its tourism sector to regain economic normality. 

In this comparative analysis, it is important to highlight that although Fiji has 360,000 more people than the Maldives, both countries have comparable GDPs of around $5.5 billion each. This gives the Maldives the comparative advantage in GDP per capita, having around $10,600 per person, while Fiji has $6,200. 

This GDP to population ratio is one of the factors that has allowed the Maldives to have a smoother path to recovery, aided by the fact that they have taken more active monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy. 

However, the long-term recovery effects are yet to be seen entering the second quarter and the summer. This will be one of the main challenges for all the SIDS worldwide as they scramble to return to their pre-pandemic tourism levels.

Although a major part of the success of each country’s recovery will ultimately depend on the state of Covid restrictions within it as well as within its main tourism providing countries, the influence of fiscal and monetary policy as well as leadership in creating a sustainable strategy for recovery cannot be ignored. 

Tourism is a very fragile industry, and through these two examples, it is clear that there can be different approaches to addressing its fragility. With very different kinds of SIDS around the world, from the very rich like Singapore to the small and humble like Tuvalu, each country will have to develop their own personalized approach to recovery. 

Nonetheless, the fact that diversification is one of the main goals for SIDS still remains, as they look to make their economy more resilient to possible threats such as global warming and tourism crashes like the one that the pandemic originated. 

The post The True Cost of COVID-19 on Tourism for Small Island Developing States appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

But what has often been overlooked in the crisis is the acknowledgment of how different groups of Yemeni citizens are experiencing the conflict differently. In particular, the extreme circumstances of the country’s seven-year-long instability have led many to ignore how Yemeni women often bear the brunt of the issues caused by the crisis, on top of the gender-based challenges they face due to the discriminatory legal system and the crisis’s effect on the level of gender-based violence.

Data about the Yemen crisis’s death toll varies depending on if one focuses on those affected directly by the conflict or if it is extended to deaths caused indirectly. According to the Yemen Data Project, the country has incurred over 18,000 attacks, of which around half were deaths and half were injuries, as a direct result of the conflict from 2016 to now. This, however, does not include casualties caused by other pressing humanitarian issues the crisis in Yemen has created. The United Nations estimates that over 131,000 have died as a result of the indirect effects of the war in Yemen, including factors such as hunger and lack of access to adequate health services. 

According to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), a humanitarian non-governmental organization focused on the fight against poverty, an average of six women are killed every day in Yemen due to the conflict. Women and children are also frequently displaced, comprising 75% of displaced individuals. The majority of displacement in Yemen is internal, with Yemenis moving from place to place within the country to avoid fighting, famine, and disease. Some of the displaced are met with humanitarian aid when they arrive at new locations, such as in Marib where the UNHCR, UN, and International Organization for Migration have attempted to provide food and shelter to those fleeing the city of Al Suwayda. 

Women are often disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises in times of civil unrest or war. In the case of Yemen, this inequality is exacerbated as women’s access to work is heavily limited by socio-cultural norms.

For 14 years, Yemen was ranked last in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index, and only in 2021 did it manage to be ranked second to last — ahead of newly-added Afghanistan. According to the 2021 index, Yemen is one of the countries with the largest economic gender gap, at 28.2% of the gap closed so far, and income gap, with women’s income being around 7% that of men. It also has one of the lowest percentages of women in the labor force, at 6.3%, and the lowest number of women in managerial positions, at 4.1%. On top of this, Yemen was ranked 154/156 in female economic participation and opportunity, 152/156 in educational attainment, 95/156 in health and survival, and 154/156 in political empowerment.

This is likely the result of an extremely patriarchal culture in Yemen, rooted in persistent and extreme gender roles. Yemeni women and girls experience forced niqab (a veil that covers the whole face excluding the eyes), divorce shame, child marriage, domestic violence, and honor killings — all of which are aggravated by the extended and ongoing crisis in the country. 

According to Amnesty International, the crisis has forced Yemeni women to take on greater roles and responsibilities than traditionally expected of them and, as a result, the levels of violence they experience have increased. Women and girls not only face extreme danger due to the crisis and fighting in the region between the Houthis and Yemeni Forces (supported by UAE and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Houthi forces), but also security and economic risks due to a discriminatory legal system. Left with a damaged system of services and infrastructure that is unable to properly support them or allow them to seek legal remedy, and further faced with things like arbitrary detentions and the disappearance of male family members, women in Yemen are stepping up and suffering as a result. 

In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, known as the Women, Peace and Security resolution. The resolution was enacted in an effort to address the fact that women and girls suffer disproportionately from negative effects during and after times of war. This unfair burden is due to the proliferation of social networks and the magnification of inequality, both of which expose women and girls to things like sexual violence and exploitation in greater capacities than in peacetime. In the nearly two decades since its adoption, the resolution has aimed to help affected women by making them participants in peacemaking efforts and politics. 

The resolution has been somewhat successful in some regions, playing a large part in helping women participate in peace processes in their countries. This has meant enabling women to act as signatories on peace agreements, participate in peace talks and negotiation, assist with humanitarian responses and post-conflict reconstruction, or partake in other peace-driven actions.

Nonetheless, women in Yemen are consistently underrepresented in peace talks, even in the face of concerted effort from the UN and other humanitarian organizations to address this gap. So, despite women taking on the roles vacated by their loved ones who may have been lost in the crisis or forcibly taken and held, they are not able to advocate for their own safety. 

This, however, is not the full extent of challenges that Yemeni women face. According to the World Food Program (WFP), in times of crisis, women and girls are put at greater risk for humanitarian issues, on top of the gender-based issues they already experience. One of the most common problems is that girls are often pulled out of school or forced to marry early in order for families to survive, as many are unable to afford food alongside paying for school or an additional child. The WFP also reports that, for women, one of the main dangers is malnutrition. This can be caused by the burden of pregnancy — more than one million pregnant and lactating Yemeni women required malnutrition treatment or prevention intervention in 2019 — or the burden of childcare. These women have to become self-sacrificing to a dangerous extent, often giving up their own food to feed their children.

Right now in Yemen, around 50,000 people are facing famine-like conditions, and 11 million more are experiencing food insecurity. Young children are particularly vulnerable to hunger, with around half of Yemeni children under five expected to experience acute malnutrition, according to the WFP. 

As the Yemen crisis fades from news headlines, due to the nature of it being such an extended conflict, it’s important to stay up-to-date on the current situation. This is particularly true when considering how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the war-torn country and its most vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 is not the first public health crisis to affect Yemen, as cholera, diphtheria, measles, and dengue fever were all reported in the country prior, with cholera affecting a suspected two million Yemenis since 2016. However, Yemen was, and is not, prepared to handle the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, medical facilities and personnel have not been left alone during the conflict. More than half of the 5,000 or so health centers have closed and many health professionals have been forced to flee. On top of this, health aid has been obstructed by the Houthi and other authorities.

Considering the heavy use of starvation as a weapon of war in Yemen, primarily by the Houthis, the impact of hunger and starvation on an individual’s health and the disproportionate way women experience hunger has escalated the pandemic. In April 2020, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Yemen warned that, based on epidemiological projections, nearly 16 million people in Yemen could be infected by COVID-19 under the current conditions. 

The actual number of cases in Yemen is difficult to know as data on COVID-19 in the country is difficult to collect. The government has only reported deaths in the hundreds, but considering the disastrous nature of the healthcare system and the fact that war makes health crises worse, the number is likely much higher. Still, There is evidence that the country is currently experiencing a second wave of the disease. On top of the expected rise in cholera cases with the rainy season in May, this could be devastating for the population, and it will further complicate and inflame the suffering and discrimination that women in Yemen already face.

There is hope, however, as at the end of March 2021, Yemen received its first batch of COVID-19 vaccines, which included 360,000 doses, 13,000 safety boxes and 1.3 million syringes, through COVAX. This was the first step in the plan to vaccinate the country, with an estimated 1.9 million doses expected to be delivered to the country throughout the rest of the year. Those leading the vaccine effort will be forced to navigate the crumbling healthcare system and figure out how to equitably distribute vaccinations. 

Women are suffering in Yemen as a result of the humanitarian crisis, and the COVID-19 health crisis has only made things worse. It is important to understand and acknowledge the nuanced convergence of humanitarian, security and public health crises in Yemen. Otherwise, it is easy to get lost in the severity and horror often broadcasted and covered through global media. 

The post The Yemen Crisis is Disproportionately Affecting Women and Girls appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

An interview with Francesco Loiola, a USC senior and Italian-born citizen, shed light on the country’s sociopolitical complexities. 

Currently, over 118,000 deaths have been reported in Italy, and the government is again scrambling to contain a new surge and the emergence of variants. As the first European country to enter a full lockdown, Italy has become all too familiar with the imposed stringent restrictions. 

“Italy is fragmented,” Loiola said. “There are parts of the nation where people tend to behave in a certain way.”

Geographical regions are color-coded on a map, depending on their level of contagion. In red-zone areas, individuals cannot leave their homes except for health and work-related reasons, and all non-essential businesses are closed. In orange zones, various shops can open, but restaurants and bars exclusively offer take-away and/or delivery services. In yellow zones, businesses, restaurants and bars may remain open until 6 PM. 

However, over Easter weekend, the entire country was considered a red zone and subjected to a national lockdown from April 3 to 5. In tandem with inoculation delays and medical concerns with the AstraZeneca vaccine due to unsubstantiated claims of blood clot formation, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. 

Vaccination delays across the European Union (EU) inevitably explain Italy’s low vaccination rates, but are not the sole contributing factor. News of AstraZeneca’s vaccine efficacy and health-related concerns halted the EU’s vaccination efforts, giving rise to controversial claims among health and safety experts. A lack of transparency and a disunited front led Italy to temporarily suspend the use of the vaccine until the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted clearance. In April 2021, the EMA’s Executive Director, Emer Cooke, said there is no clear evidence linking the negatively experienced symptoms, such as clotting and bleeding, to the vaccine. However, the impressions of Italian citizens vary. 

A scientific study published by the European Journal of Epidemiology, “Mistrust in Biomedical Research and Vaccine Hesitancy”, assessed vaccine hesitancy amongst a random sample of 968 Italian citizens. The report revealed that citizen trust in scientific research and vaccine efficacy decreased, especially amongst middle-aged individuals. According to the results, the proportion of citizens willing to receive the vaccination is too miniscule to prevent the effective spreading of COVID-19 within the nation. Trust in the European Medicine Agency is essential to extinguish misleading claims that deter herd immunity efforts. 

“In general, people are aware that there are no side effects but are fearful because of health concerns… some are calling upon Draghi to receive the vaccine on camera and will not receive it until Draghi and the Minister of Health do,” Loiola said. 

Draghi has faced unbearable pressure since winning the Senate’s confidence vote, a formality in creating a new government within Italy. At the request of Italy’s president, Draghi formed his own government in January 2021 to tackle the nation’s health and economic crises.

When Draghi was elected, “newspapers all over the world reported on an Italian giant taking over Italy,” Loiola said. “They called him ‘Super Mario’… this is the first time in 25 years that Italian politics has been shown in a positive light,” posing a direct contrast to the notorious corruption that had taken center stage in Italian politics in years past. 

The “cheating mentality” in Italian politics, as Loiola mentioned, has led to widespread misconduct, as evidenced by Matteo Renzi’s term as prime minister and the infamous referendum of 2016. The proposed plebiscite encompassed a series of drastic changes to the Italian political system. If passed, it would have allowed for major reforms to the constitution. 

Francesco Galietti, chief executive of a Rome based political risk consultancy expressed concerns about the referendum’s disillusioned goals: “Renzi, like David Cameron, thought he could unite the party with a referendum and all he achieved was to divide it more than ever,” said Galietti. For most, the referendum was tied to the prime minister’s performance in office. Renzi received high approval ratings when initially assuming the role in 2014, but voters became increasingly frustrated over high unemployment numbers, the migration crisis and health-related issues. 

The referendum received unparalleled voter turn-out, with 70% of the population voting ‘no’ not only on the issues at hand but on Renzi’s rule. While Renzi promised to step back after an ignominious defeat, he returned after a month, launching his own party and igniting a governmental crisis amid the pandemic. 

Thus, the most notable effect of Draghi’s emergence into Italian politics has been both the nation’s and the European Union’s renewed trust in Italy. His experience as former chief of the European Central Bank, credited with “saving the Euro,” has gained him immense popularity amongst Italians and political opposition parties. He remarkably received the support of moderate and conservative politicians alike and now leads a six-party government. 

“Draghi’s presence means we have access to a lot more European money because they [the European Union]trust him,” Loiola said.

In addition to restoring transparency, Draghi’s main task is to redesign the recovery plan that determines how Italy will spend 251 billion dollars in loans and grants from the EU. Draghi’s extensive experience in handling financial markets has made him the quintessential leader to lead Italy out of its economic crisis and improve the quality of life for Italian citizens. 

The wave of restrictions has caused a 30% decline in Italy’s industrial production and an economy shrinkage of 8.9%, a comparable recession to Italy post-World War II. 

Record unemployment numbers and business closures drove the masses into poverty. Approximately 36.7 billion euros were lost from the Italian economy due to travel restrictions that halted their tourism industry, which traditionally makes up 13% of their GDP. 

The European Commission is expected to release more information about an EU-wide digital vaccination passport that would allow for a certain degree of tourism. When asked about how Italians would respond to a digital vaccination passport, Loiola said: “At this stage, more people care about the economy… by May, citizens under the age of 60 should start being vaccinated and they comprise a huge majority of the population and those most heavily affected by COVID-19. When they administer those vaccinations… Italy will [encourage]tourism.”

With a clear agenda ahead, Italians are hopeful in a reformed governmental approach that can effectively tackle the myriad of crises that have plagued the nation. With an emphasis on transparency and diplomacy, Italy’s growth may be insurmountable within the next few years, making way for a second renaissance under Mario Draghi’s guidance. 

The post Foreign Perspective: Mario Draghi’s Transformation of Italy on the International Stage appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

The post It’s Time to Reassess Single-Use Plastic Around the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The highly infectious nature of COVID-19, and the lack of effective action from some of the world’s governments, mean that many countries are still struggling to cope with the pandemic and its economic, political and social devastation. And while the world now moves forward with vaccinations, many countries in the Global South are left behind. Additionally, the pandemic isn’t over yet; new strains and ever-changing public health guidance leaves an uncertain future for the global community. 

But as the world begins to learn more about different country’s public health responses, key lessons have emerged. In particular, several countries have proved to be successful in controlling the virus and mitigating its effects. 

To determine the effectiveness of different country’s pandemic control, it is necessary to take into account three elements: healthcare responses, political responses and economic responses. In the past year, the Lowy Institute launched the COVID-19 Performance Index to assess different pandemic responses in nearly 100 countries. Countries were ranked based on their lock-down implementation, testing regimes, confirmed cases and death rates. The Institute found that the best global responses to COVID-19 were countries that were successful in achieving these goals with early action and mass testing. Countries identified as victors have been able to take COVID-19 transmission under control while monitoring the status closely to prevent another potential relapse. 

In contrast, countries that failed to effectively manage the pandemic have seen devastating consequences, including mass infections and high death rates. For instance, India — with over 11 million infected cases — is ranked at 86th out of 100 countries, while England ranks 66th with the highest death number in Europe. For these countries, the lack of a quick and adequate response was likely caused by early disregard for the severity of the virus, opposition to scientific guidelines by country officials or inefficient enforcement of lock-downs. 

This article will provide a brief overview of countries that have been labeled relative “victors” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

China: Strict Policies

China, the first country where COVID-19 became prevalent in 2020, has implemented efficient policies and public health strategies since last March. To first tackle the pandemic, China initiated a uniform and centralized response and alerted Chinese citizens quickly when deadly cases first appeared in Wuhan Province. 

One of the most critical policies undertaken was an immediate lockdown of Wuhan Province in January 2020, following a surging number of COVID-19 related deaths in late 2019. The province’s quarantine lasted for 76 days with 14,000 health checkpoints established to conduct timely tests. More impressive was the fact that 9 million people were tested during the region’s lockdown under short notice and with limited medical personnel. 

As Wuhan underwent a severe lockdown, other cities throughout China quickly followed suit. Outdoor activities were severely restricted and person-to-person interaction was significantly reduced. Throughout China, the government implemented face mask mandates and daily temperature tests for individuals looking to leave their homes for essential goods. In China, the government also implemented swift policies related to education: school openings were delayed and online classes were instated countrywide.

The decisiveness of Chinese policy regarding virus containment and elimination has proven to be successful, even over a year after the first emergence of the virus. In China, life has generally returned to pre-COVID normality. Fast response along with strong enforcement were the determining factors for getting preliminary virus transmission under control. 

A significant factor that prompted China’s recovery from COVID-19 was its political system. As an authoritarian country, China handled the emergency more easily than democracies across the world. China was able to mobilize the country’s resources to impose strict lock-downs and attempt to control the spread. The deeply centralized and dictatorial style of governance allowed for a military-style mobilization, which was the defining characteristic of China’s pandemic response. 170,000 party officials, executives and military personnels were summoned by Chairman Xi Jinping in a conference, who laid out clear guidelines of governing responsibilities. China’s Communist Party (CCP) demonstrated its formidable and controlling capacity in declaring and administering emergency crises. 

While China has been fast in their early actions and eager to control COVID-19’s spread, China has nonetheless been blamed for its failures in the early stages of the catastrophe. Former U.S. President Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic. He also pointed out that China did not engage in full information sharing with foreign officials, which resulted in an uncontrollable spread. Admittedly, the Wuhan mayor acknowledged that China failed to reveal necessary information in a “timely manner,” and that doctors who treated the first patients in Wuhan were under a strict order to downplay the severity of the virus and to keep silent. Moreover, many believe that the virus emerged originally from China, however, after extensive background research and laboratory tests, its spread pattern remains elusive. 

Under the Trump administration, Washington saw this as an opportunity to downgrade China’s global reputation. Trump often called COVID-19 the “Chinese virus,” and throughout the United States, anti-Chinese sentiment spiked and there has been an increase in hate crimes and acts of violence against the Asian American community. 

But, other countries that implemented similar policies and enacted national lockdowns did not seem to generate promising results. This is because in addition to a strict nationwide quarantine, China’s track and trace programs were also effective and efficiently implemented.  China put procedures in place that required each individual not only to self-track, but also to report and document their health status using apps, QR codes and social media platforms. Individuals who wanted access to public places had to demonstrate their green QR code, proving their good health status. This enabled local authorities to closely monitor the rate of virus transmission and implement policies accordingly. 

In contrast, many western countries failed to establish an effective surveillance system on health status and, therefore, lacked crucial information about virus transmission and its severity. For example, the UK has been criticized for its poor tracking system, which rendered it difficult for the country’s authorities to record accurate numbers of infected individuals and trace case interactions While the number of deadly cases were on the rise, a significant data-entry error occurred due to logistical problems, further delaying the UK’s effective tracing program during the moment it mattered most. 

Essentially, China’s government was able to engage in early, sweeping and deeply restrictive action in the name of public health. Comparatively, the United States was late to the game with poor testing checkpoints, an overwhelmed healthcare system, crippling numbers and a lack of cohesive federal action under the Trump administration. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it was reported that American labs were experiencing difficulties with processing CDC-approved testing kits. As a result, confirmed cases during early February 2020 only reached about 500, which was significantly lower than the actual number of active cases in the country. 

As China was taking strict measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 in February, the U.S. government implemented few policies targeting the virus and therefore lost the chance to control the pandemic before it spiralled out of control. It wasn’t until late February 2020, almost 2 months after the first case was reported, that the United States declared a state of emergency and began implementing travel bans, as well as considering vaccine development. 

New Zealand: Successful Leadership

New Zealand is a unique case when it comes to understanding how countries combatted COVID-19, not only due to its distinct geographical characteristics but also because of the government’s strong enforcement of health protocols. 

New Zealand’s government underwent swift actions at the early stages of pandemic to contain the virus’ spread. The international community has praised New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who executed quick and decisive measures, including a strict national lockdown and quarantine orders, with the hope of eliminating the virus. The country has identified one last-known COVID-19 case and therefore marked the end of the pandemic only in 103 days since the first case, making it fewer than 2000 COVID-19 cases altogether and 25 deaths in New Zealand. Ardern has led New Zealand with optimism and science at the forefront of her policy — reinforcing the idea that the battle against COVID-19 could be won. 

In the early stages of the pandemic, Ardern gave a speech directly to New Zealanders, which many observers noted had a soothing effect on preparing the island as a united front, ready to collectively work as a country in the name of public health. Her policies included strict quarantine for anyone entering New Zealand, suspension of select foreign travel, and a suspension of select domestic travel within the country’s borders. While COVID-19 cases were exponentially increasing in Europe and the United States in March 2020, New Zealand reported about only 1,500 cases by the end of May 2020. More importantly, New Zealand officials encouraged effective communication with health officials and supported the country’s scientists and health experts.

However, with a population of only 4.8 million people, New Zealand was able to easily move ahead the curb. The advantage of a relatively smaller population and New Zealand’s unique geographical features have played an indispensable role in its successful COVID-19 response. As an island country, New Zealand’s mountainous terrain limits residential capacity and population density remains low. It was also fairly easy to control the country’s borders. 

Comparing New Zealand’s successful efforts with those of the United States is like night and day. Former President Donald Trump decided to disband the White House’s pandemic response team in May 2018. Trump also repeatedly communicated false statements about the pandemic to the American public. His dubious attitude toward science and the pandemic have proven to be detrimental to controlling the pandemic. As of March 2021, the U.S death toll reached 568,000. After being infected with COVID-19, himself, and receiving medical care in Washington, Trump had a triumphant return to the White House, and told Americans: “Don’t be afraid of COVID.”  

Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, posed a genuine threat to the American pandemic response — a stark contrast with the decisive and science-forward leadership of Ardern. 

Finland: Clear Communication

On the European continent, a successful model that has emerged from the pandemic is Finland, which has one of the lowest COVID-19 infection rates among the Nordic countries. With a population half of Sweden’s, Finland has only around one-tenth of Sweden’s confirmed cases and record 805 deaths in total. The low infection rates and death rates are largely attributed to its aggressive and early action. 

When the first identified case emerged, Finland implemented a two-month long lock-down swiftly following closings of public facilities including schools and restaurants. More importantly, the central feature that made such early action possible is because the constitution in Finland permitted its government to use the Emergency Act to enforce lock-down measures, which Sweden failed to use since it had a stricter constitution only for emergency situations such as war. 

Other than swift actions undertaken in early 2020, which happened two weeks earlier than other Scandinavian countries, through the increased usage of social media, Finland has excelled at public health communication, which has allowed its citizens to fully understand the severity of the virus. Clear communication was the key to Finland’s success, according to Finnish doctors, who professed direct guidelines to encourage social distancing and quarantine rules. The Finnish government also ran on transparent management with weekly public briefings with press conferences and open ground for questions commenced by Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Finland also utilized the power of technology to raise awareness of COVID-19. 

It has also effectively monitored the growth of COVID-19 through an app called “Corona Flush.” This app was widely adopted by almost every person in Finland and enabled the country to identify and keep track of virus cases. Additionally, the Finnish government partnered with social media influencers, who spread the correct information about the virus on various digital platforms. The role of social media influencers includes raising awareness and reaching as many audiences as possible, especially young people who are more active on digital media. One of the most prominent collaborations was between the Finnish government and social media influencer PING Helsinki, who was responsible for editing government messages into appropriate format and posting them on her personal account. The instances of such cooperation prevail since Finnish people have high faith in social media and have a tendency to reach fact-based information on digital networks. 

Finland has also been alert in keeping track of potential relapse of COVID-19 spread after its initial success. In fact, as there have been rising cases of COVID-19 cases in the past month, the Finnish government has immediately declared a state of emergency and responded with closing of restaurants and schools again in order to minimize human contact. It has also declared entry restrictions for any Schengen Area countries until April 2021 to prevent incoming virus. The border control has also been reinforced by a limited operation hour for the border crossing point. The Ministry highlighted that anybody who wishes to enter Finnish border must be tested negative in order to be qualified. 

Lessons Learned 

Though it is impossible to replicate the success of combatting COVID-19 in one country in another,  there are still many lessons we can glean from the success of COVID-19’s “victors.” 

Early action, a respect for science, decisive leadership and effective communication were critical factors in several countries’ successful pandemic response  But countries ought to continuously monitor the virus and public health in order to prevent another outbreak — whether it be different COVID-19 strains or different viruses all together. 

The post The Victors and Role Models Emerging from the COVID-19 Pandemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Now, a year later and just five months from the rescheduled start date, the nation languishes in a state of emergency with over 1,000 COVID-19 cases per day. Public support for the Olympics has also plummeted; one poll showed that 80% of the Japanese public think that the Games should be canceled or further delayed, while others fear it will become a super spreader. In the face of all of this, why is the Japanese government still so adamant that the Games must go on? 

A key concern is the economic repercussions. Organizers have said that the cost of postponing the Games run up to $15 billion, though audits by the Japanese government show that they are at least $25 billion. It is understandable that the country, which was grappling with a declining economy even before the pandemic, would try at any expense to recoup its sunk costs. 

The Olympics was thought to be the sweet swan song of former prime minister Shinzo Abe. It was supposed to reinvigorate the economy by increasing jobs, tourism and consumer spending under his brand of “Abenomics.” Now that tourism seems unlikely for the time being, Japan would want to at least hold on to the billions of sponsorship revenue from the Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which earns almost three-quarters of its income selling broadcasting rights, would likewise be pressuring Japan to continue the Games, with spectators or without. 

More than just an economic revival, Tokyo 2020 was meant to be Japan’s resurgence in the global arena. The first time Japan played host was in 1964, a roaring comeback after the cancelation of the 1940 Tokyo Games due to World War II. Tokyo wowed the world with bullet trains and shiny new stadiums, signaling the nation’s post-war recovery and boosting national pride and its global image. 

In a similar vein, the 2020 Tokyo Games were dubbed the “Reconstruction Olympics” after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. One may say that in a broader sense, reconstruction now carries a double meaning: reconstructing national confidence, especially in the pandemic era, and reconstructing Japan’s image. 

Another consideration is the East Asian cultural concept of “losing face”. Losing face is when one’s reputation is tarnished, incurring public shame. The Japanese government would “lose face” among its people if they canceled the Games now, especially after the resolute tone the country has adopted. But if the Games turn out to be successful, this accomplishment pulled off by the government would surely go down in history. 

On a personal level, current Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga might feel obliged to honor his predecessor’s wish to host the Olympics. Described by Japanese media as Abe’s “loyal right-hand man,” Suga worked under the former prime minister as the chief cabinet secretary for eight years before Abe resigned. “I will carry on former Prime Minister Abe’s policies and push them forward in order to overcome this national crisis,” Suga said in his first speech as the new prime minister. Tokyo 2021 would realize Abe’s dream and help Suga avoid losing face to Abe and the rest of his political party. 

Canceling the Olympics will also mean losing face to China. Like their last Olympics, Japan intended to use Tokyo 2020 to indicate recovery and reassert their dominance in Asia. It was to be the nation’s dramatic bounce back from the economic stagnation that has plagued them over the past decades, stimulating investment and confidence from abroad. Instead, with the 2022 Winter Olympics slated to take place in Beijing, conservatives would undoubtedly see it as shameful if the title of hosting the first post-pandemic Olympics goes to their regional rival. 

Most recently, Japan managed to secure unanimous support for the Olympics from its allies in the G7. The G7 communique stated that the Games, which are to be held in a “safe and secure manner”, will serve as a “symbol of global unity in overcoming COVID-19.” This puts even more pressure on the country to not just carry out the Games, but do so in a safe manner to prevent competing international athletes from opting out. 

Transcending the personal, the national, and the international is the very spirit of the Olympics, a mark of humanity’s extraordinary resilience. Suga likes to frame Tokyo 2020 as “proof that humanity has defeated the virus.” Regardless of whether that’s just talk, it is undeniable that these Games will set a precedent for all Olympic Games to follow, as well as the broader “new normal”. It seems, then, the “Reconstruction Olympics” is not just about reconstructing Japan but the whole post-pandemic world. 

Despite Japan’s bravado, the future remains as unpredictable as ever. Nobody will be able to tell for certain how the pandemic will develop in a few months, or if sporting unions will boycott the Games out of health concerns. While there may be a light at the end of the tunnel with the increased global rollout of vaccines, the process is slow in Japan, where many citizens are wary of getting vaccinated. Nevertheless, even as new strains and public health challenges continue to develop, we can be sure that Japan will try, at all costs, to keep the Olympic flame alive. 

The post Why the Show Must Go On: Japan Stakes Its Recovery on the ‘2020’ Olympics appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As we entered into the new year, vaccine roll-outs across the world served as a source of hope for many, a light at the end of a very long tunnel. So how is it then, that Britain, despite having one of the most successful vaccination programs, finds the world looking at it so despairingly? 

With the highest death toll in Europe, having recently surpassed the grim milestone of 100,000 deaths, one can be under no illusions about the United Kingdom’s failings during this pandemic. It’s failure is stark and beyond tragic. While the current British Government has made a slew of errors, such as its late decisions to implement a lockdown or restrict travel, the cause of many failings are systemic and arise from its neoliberal policies. 

These policies, which Stephanie Mudge, a specialist in political and economic analysis of the west, describes as the “embrace of 3 things: economic privatization, deregulation and liberalization as the means of government,” have proved to be the UK’s Achilles’ heel during the handling of the crisis.

While the term neoliberalism was first coined in 1938 in Paris, it wasn’t until 1947, when Friedrich Hayek formed the Mount Pelerin society, that the neoliberal ideology began in earnest. Mount Pelerin was a small cohort of philosophers, economists and journalists who were tasked with spreading the doctrine of neoliberalism. However, it was only in the late 70’s and early 80’s that Ronald Reagan and Margert Thatcher in the UK, began to implement such policies. And so, the neoliberal era was born.

The pandemic, as well as serving to illuminate pre-existing inequalities, has acted as a controlled experiment by exposing different systems of governance and politics to the same multi-facetted difficulties simultaneously. The group of countries that have effectively managed the pandemic possess an eclectic mix of political systems ranging from poor countries like Vietnam to developed western democracies such as Germany. The common factor here is that all these countries rejected their respective economic ideologies in favour of the pragmatism that a public health crisis of this magnitude demands.

The UK, however, in a naïve attempt to mitigate unnecessary economic damage chose to stick to its economic ideology when on February 3, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the UK would act “powerfully” against “a desire for market segregation” caused by the new disease. A key failing in the UK’s response was the government’s inability to outsource tasks to private companies effectively, a move only necessitated by the neoliberal trend towards privatization. The New York Times recently reported that out of 1,200 government contracts that were made public “about half went to companies with political connections, no prior experience, or histories of controversy.” In choosing “speed over due diligence ministers squandered millions,” this undoubtedly cost lives.

A similar problem occurred with the UK’s ill-fated Test and Trace program, an initiative designed to alert people who have been exposed to the virus. Many of its tasks were handed over to outsourcing giants Serco and Sitel where reportedly staff only reached less than half of contacts of people who had recently tested positive for COVID-19, greatly reducing the programme’s efficiency at limiting the spread of the virus. Another key hindrance was the state of the UK’s healthcare system following the financial crisis. As a result of the neoliberal austerity that was ushered in following 2008, 17,000 hospital beds were lost and there were more than 40,000 vacant nurse positions across the NHS. Whereas in Germany, they have 29.2 ICU beds per 100,000 people — the highest ratio in Europe — in the UK the same figure is 6.6. In Germany, they were able to instigate a rapid health response and keep mortality rates low. In the UK, they could do neither.

It’s also well documented that a wider macroeconomic loyalty to markets —- a hallmark of neoliberalism —-  incurs such financial risks that it effectively blocks pharmaceutical companies from taking preventative action. Since the SARS outbreak in 2003, scientists around the world have been warning that a global pandemic of this magnitude was inevitable. Many of the vaccines for COVID-19 are similar to those developed for SARS which is also a Coronavirus. However private pharmaceutical companies are not incentivised by the market, due to a lack of profit, to produce potentially useful vaccines. While we have not seen adaptability in the vaccine market, I should note that the pandemic has demonstrated market dynamism with many British companies, such as the clothing manufacturer Burberry, successfully altering their production lines to successfully procure vital personal protective equipment. Yet, on balance, it seems the UK’s adoption of neoliberalism, at least to some extent, prevents an effective crisis response.

With the World Health Organization’s recent warning of more pandemics to come, something must change to ensure the UK, a country fighting for global status, is better prepared. Despite the recent Democratic victory in the United States there is an acquiescence that the Democratic party is committed to neoliberal and free market ideals. In the UK however, there is still a hope for change. If the Labour Party (the UK’s centre-left political party) were to win a majority in their 2024 general election, they could conceivably begin to undo some of the UK’s neoliberal tendencies. In addition, it would bring a 15 year spell in office to an end for the Conservatives (the UK’s centre-right political party), who have held office since 2010. While it seems likely that the Government’s myopic handling of the pandemic will form the bedrock for a Labour victory, Stephanie Mudge, in her 2018 book Leftism Reinvented: Western Parties from Socialism to Neoliberalism, makes a worryingly compelling case that even a Labour landslide would not spell the end for neoliberalism. To understand why, we must take a look at just how neoliberalism came to be the UK’s status quo.

During the sixties, the rhetoric of the Labour party was of management of the economy and full employment. The Government, following Keynesian principles, unashamedly sought social goals and the welfare state continued to grow. Yet as ‘stagflation’ began to take hold in the seventies this began to change. Stagflation, a mixture of rising inflation and unemployment, directly contradicted Keynesian principles. This was the so-called ‘scientific’ critique. There was also the ‘political’ critique. This view, which was promoted by a rebellious cohort of economists, Mudge writes, was “that mainstream economics [Keynesianism] was implicitly an economics of the left.” Actors such as Milton Friedman argued that Keynesian economists, and by proxy their economics, were too politically involved and therefore not scientific enough.

This latter critique won and fundamentally changed the dogma within economics, giving rise to a new breed of economist. This new breed of economists saw their responsibilities in terms of expanding and sustaining markets. As neoliberal economics became the mainstream during the Thatcher years, economists-in-politics sought not to manage the economy, but to insulate the markets from political interference, even if this worked directly against the interests of voters. However, when Labour came into office in 1997, under Tony Blair and the label of ‘New Labour’, they too adopted the neoliberal view of the economy cultivated years earlier. As a result the party moved towards representing markets more than the working class people they claimed to represent.

So while the recent decade of neoliberal rule in the UK has been at the hands of the Conservatives, this neoliberalization of the left parties, seen also in the Democratic party, gives UK citizens reason to be pessimistic, even about a 2024 Labour landslide. Until contemporary economists in the Labour party revert to being voter-, instead of market-centric the UK is bound to follow the U.S. on its path to implosion. Realigning left leaning parties with their constituencies is without a doubt a hard task, but as George Washington once said, the harder the task the greater the triumph; and what a triumph it would be.

This article was written by Glimpse from the Globe’s guest contributing author.

Will Lewallen, who grew up in London, is in his second year at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Whilst majoring in philosophy he has used his first two years to broaden his studies, minoring in economics and politics. His are of interest lies in seeking ways to radically re-think existing structures to improve people’s lives. He is particularly interested in cooperatives and how these can further democracy in the political and economic realms. In his spare time Will is an avid skier, alpinist and a general lover of mountains.

Contact: williamlewallen00@gmail.com

The post Coronavirus and the UK’s Neoliberalized Left appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.