I will not lie. What I have witnessed thus far at the COP29 conference is quite disheartening. I am not an expert on this process. I have only attended a few panels and negotiations at the conference this year and maintain only a cursory understanding of the processes at hand, but my limited knowledge has left me without much hope for the future.

This year, the negotiations are centrally focused on addressing the expiration of a clause from the Paris Agreement that established an annual commitment of 100 billion dollars from “developed” to “developing” countries for “climate action.” This goal was met for the first time in 2022, eleven years after it was first agreed to and two years after the deadline initially set in that agreement. Currently, negotiators are aiming to raise that commitment by more than ten-fold. As recently reported in the Guardian, an estimated 2.4 trillion a year is needed for developing countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

This is just one fragment of the climate finance puzzle, with trillions more needed just to mitigate the climate disasters already plaguing countries around the world. Even if negotiators come to an agreement on the climate action contributions, we do not have decades longer to wait. Additionally, as a result of the recent Presidential Election, it is unlikely the United States will even be a member of the UNCCC a year from now. Without the contributions of the US, it is questionable whether a conversation on these finance objectives will even occur.

Meanwhile, the conference and its delegates seem to just carry on as usual. The formality of it all, the gestures at so-called “climate justice” in every panel discussion and official statements, and posters reading “we support a just and equitable future,” in that light, are really a unique form of violence. It feels like some perverse dystopia walking through the halls of this conference, hearing so many words without substance; so many “experts” and “leaders” regurgitating their scripts; so much energy, time, and resources poured into polishing the weapons against people and our planet. The corporations and capitalists have clearly won. Thus far, I have only heard from one or two people that have actually attached any substantive power analysis to their vision for the future. Those few voices are drowned in the sea of corporate billboards, LED displays, and messages flooding nearly every remaining inch of visible space.

I appreciate that hovering in reality at this moment is bleak, but I am far more overwhelmed by the swarm of mistruth and micro-aggression at every corner. It was a particularly sharp violence hearing the American Petroleum Institute Vice President exclaim “great optimism” for the future as millions of lives are stolen, emissions continuously rise, and climate disasters reach record levels each year after the next. I am not concerned with whomever can build the “shiniest” renewable energy program. I am concerned with who can best defend the people being continuously dispossessed and extracted from around the world.

My hope for the future currently exists in knowing that this process will likely fail enough that a better system might be contemplated. Those who are exuding optimism are those that are currently primed to steal the greatest share of wealth from the collapse, or as one poster here read “finding the return on responsibility.” I think I am optimistic, but my optimism is difficult. It is rooted in knowing that there is a real challenge to overcome; that the systemic issues underlying the current crisis must be addressed and prioritized before we can make any genuine progress fighting that crisis. I just wish the UN did not claim to be building the solution. It isn’t. Not like this. Hopefully, for now, people can continue to fight in spite of it. A functioning COP will have to be the byproduct of their bravery.

 

Colin Rosadino is a law student at the UConn School of Law.

I write this report in Baku, Azerbaijan, with the clock set at three days left for international climate talks to achieve big change. According to the United Nations Emissions Gap Report for 2024, which was released at this year’s Conference of Parties (COP), we are rapidly losing grip on a 1.5° C world. The world set a record of 57.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) produced in the year 2023, constituting a 1.3% increase from 2022 to last year. Progress in fighting climate change has stalled, with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) plateauing with countries still off track to deliver on already insufficient mitigation pledges for 2030. As of today, unconditional NDCs have reduced 2030 emissions by 4% and conditional NDCs by 10% relative to 2019 levels. The amount of reduction needed to stay in a 1.5° C world would be 42%. In summary, the situation is dire.  

So, in response 198 parties are gathering at this year’s COP (the 29th) to hammer out international agreements to smooth the pathway to achieving a substantial and global reduction in carbon emissions. While UN parties negotiate, numerous climate scientists, climate activists, representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and representatives from the private sector gather in the walkways and pavilions outside the grand delegation halls. To me, these halls constitute the pulse of this COP, which has largely been defined by a great disharmony. They range from protestors like the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) which occupied one of the halls in the Blue Zone to call on developed nations to pay their climate debt, to the Azerbaijani state oil company, SOCAR, which occupied a large plot in the Green Zone to greenwash its public image.  

Conversely, as a UN observer, I have had the unique opportunity to watch multilateral climate negotiations happen in the hall in real time. My impression is that, while the purpose of these meetings is to broker collaboration, there has only been movement on the margins. As I am writing this, I sit on a negotiation regarding Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on financial and technical support to developing countries for reporting and capacity building. On the outset the Arab Group (a party to the negotiations) requested to delete a paragraph outlining the responsibilities of the article, including the “financial, technical and capacity-building support to developing country Parties to address challenges in implementing the enhanced transparency framework, including the support received through bilateral, multilateral and other channels.” The United States challenged this but could not come to an agreement, so the issue was tabled. Next, the United Kingdom proposed deleting a paragraph in the article surrounding biannual transparency reports and reforming experience sharing with developing countries, saying that the language was too broad and undid much of the work done at last year’s COP on the issue. The African Group advocated for the paragraphs preservation as they said the language would make experience sharing easier for developing countries, improving the efficiency of using Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. This too ended in stalemate and the issue was tabled. In the end, the co-facilitators announced that the parties were entrenched and that they would table the document for later.  

In all, the negotiations took nearly 90 minutes and resulted in only marginal progress (on the level of sentences and commas). I was warned of this by Professor Urban and Seth prior to coming to this year’s negotiations (both with years of COP experience), but being in the room while it happened still stung. Unfortunately, like the negotiation I outlined, every negotiation I have attended thus far has ended in disharmony.  

Going back outside the hall, I believe where the negotiations have served to obfuscate, every other element of COP29 has served to enlighten. I have attended meetings regarding sustainable agricultural practices, climate resilient infrastructure, sustainable agroecology, perspectives on climate change from subnational island jurisdictions, and speeches given by various climate activists and scientists that have given me information and perspective, tools, to bring back to the US in both my capacity as a graduate student in public policy and as a conservation fellow fighting for Connecticut land conservation. While the disharmony inside the hall may have temporarily disarmed progress, I feel that the disharmony outside the hall has propelled new and innovative solutions that are essential to meaningfully addressing climate change. To me, information and perspective sharing is the main event at COP29 and highlights why these large multilateral international conferences still matter, even when negotiations stall. 

 

Colin Piteo is pursuing a master’s degree in Public Policy from the School of Public Policy.

This year is the 29th iteration of the Conference of Parties (COP) which is an international and annual conference held by the United Nations (UN) around climate action and decision-making. This year it is hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan. I have the delight to attend with the UConn@COP cohort, to become my second COP I have been able to attend, this time as the Sustainability Coordinator for Regional Campuses and Environmental Justice at the Office of Sustainability.

For my first two days at the Conference, I only had access to the Green Zone due to variation in badge allocation for many universities in the Global North. In previous years, our delegates had five days of Blue badge access for the duration of our time in the COP host country, but this year we only have 3-4 days for each student and faculty/staff delegate. The Green Zone is open to the public by securing free tickets two days in advance. While the Green Zone can vary every year depending on how the host country organizes the Conference, this year the Green Zone consisted of the Extreme Hangout Zone, with panels, speakers, and performances throughout the day, and several pavilions representing more industry and business. 

The Blue Zone at COP is where the delegation pavilions are held, including nations and other convening parties, and the negotiations. The negotiations are the major purpose of the annual COP gathering. This year was designed at the ‘Finance COP’ due to the need and urgency for negotiators to solidify climate finance agreements to deploy trillions of dollars needed for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. 

This unfortunately is where COP29 this year falls flat.

Nations are failing to agree on a $1 trillion deal for climate investments in developing nations after a week of negotiations. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for G20 leaders, which is a group of 20 sovereign nations making up 80% of global emissions, to step up in the global responsibility to cut emissions. G20 Leaders, who met in Rio De Janeiro on Monday, did issue a declaration calling for urgent action on climate change and global armed conflicts including a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon and peace in Ukraine. However, talks around climate finance are stalled over the final amount of climate finance needed, the type of financing (i.e. public vs. private investments and loans), and who should pay. 

COP29 negotiations around ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ also nearly collapsed after opposition from oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other developing countries. A decision to postpone talks until next year was originally made, but efforts were made to restore these talks on Monday. The pledge to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ was first made at COP28 but left out of the climate and biodiversity decision at COP16 in Colombia this year. Many delegations want to discuss further the process on how to move forward with fossil fuel transitions such as stopping building coal power plants or numerical targets for reductions including methane and deforestation. However, many countries contested this as being ‘inflexible’ and that goals in agreements should be ‘non prescriptive’. Conversations around mitigation might be delayed until the mid-year climate talks in Bonn Germany. 

A press release by the White House on November 17th announced that President Biden and his administration had surpassed the U.S. goal of providing $11 billion in annual international climate financing over the course of his administration. This makes the US the largest bilateral provider of climate finance in the world. This press release also announced commitments for $50 million for the Amazon Fund and additional investments in Amazon. While a historic feat, many advocates from the Global South still call for more financing necessary to meet the scale of mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage needed.

President Biden and his administration are attempting to negotiate an agreement with the OECD governments that would end $41 billion in annual oil and gas export finance. This would enforce binding climate negotiators before the Trump Administration and hopefully unblock larger conversations around climate finance to the Global South at COP moving forward. There is a need to get as much funding and financing out of fossil fuels before Trump’s attempts to accelerate the industry.

While COP has been and will continue to be an inspirational, educational, and incredible experience for the UConn@COP team, we cannot lose sight of the goal and intention of COP  – to make progress on climate change and have successful negotiations that cut our world’s emissions. While COP29 thus far has proven unsuccessful in terms of important negotiations, we can only wait, hope, and demand that our global leaders end this week with some goddamn climate action. 

Sydney Collins is a Campus Climate Action Corps Connecticut – Climate Action Leader with the Office of Sustainability. She was also a UConn@COP Fellow in 2022.

COP incredibly brings people together from every part of the world to include them in negotiations, panels, and events, but it is clear that not all groups receive the representation and support they deserve. We are still seeing the global powers dominate worldwide environmental action. Developing nations continue to experience the worst effects of climate change, but do not receive enough international help to adapt to and rebuild from the crisis. One interesting example I saw was in a panel on island nations including representatives from St. Helena and the Canary Islands. They spoke about being territories of wealthy, developed nations, increasing the total biodiversity of their countries. However, they are not receiving nearly enough support from their governments in facing the climate crisis. In addition, it is more difficult to receive international financial support from organizations such as the UN because these island nations are still part of wealthy countries. 

 

Another issue I noticed is very little representation of LGBTQ+ people. Queer people are disproportionately affected by climate change, yet their voices did not hold a place at the table. I attended a negotiation on gender and climate, and the majority of the delegates attending were cisgender women, with no obvious queer representation. The gender and climate policy discussed at this negotiation did not mention the wide range of gender identities such as trans, two-spirit, and non-binary. For the past three years, COP has taken place in countries where gay marriage is not recognized by law and anti-gay discrimination is legal and rampant. It is a risk for queer people to enter these countries, and open discussions on LGBTQ+ rights may not be difficult. The one place where I saw the LGBTQ+ community discussed was in a feminist climate justice protest, where activists demanded rights for women, non-binary, and trans people.

In discussing with other conferences attendees, I’ve noticed similar criticisms about the lack of justice-based actions at COP29. Nevertheless, seeing the massive amount of people and power coming together for climate keeps me hopeful for growth towards a better future. 

 

Kamala Chuss is a Marine Science major in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

In my first few days at COP29, I have gained critical insight into global perspectives on furthering sustainable initiatives through discussions and panels in the Green Zone. A unique aspect of this area of the COP is it is open to non-accredited delegates, meaning it is more accessible to the public. It has been exciting to see how the Green Zone values young perspectives in climate discussions, as exemplified through a youth-focused venue. However, there is still evidently room for improvement, as policy makers seemingly fail to treat youths in high regard.

Coming to COP, I was admittedly skeptical that youth perspectives would be respected. I did not anticipate that younger generations would be included in discussions, much less given an entire venue. I was proven wrong upon arrival to the Extreme Hangout, which is an inclusive space in the Green Zone that provides youths with a dedicated place to learn about and discuss climate issues.

I attended several youth-led presentations at the Extreme Hangout which provided a refreshing perspective on the climate crisis. One notable lecture was “Transforming Climate Narratives for Healthy Environments” by Enkhuun Byambadorj, who is a youth activist and the director of operations and co-founder of Breathe Mongolia- Clean Air Coalition. Byambadorj provided insight into the air pollution crisis in her Mongolian hometown and the direct health consequences of coal dependence, which have been met with inaction. It was incredible to hear the story of a young individual working to educate others on climate injustice and create tangible change in policy making. Byambadorj’s story demonstrates the importance of amplifying the voices of youth activists, as this representation is crucial to inspire future climate leaders.

Despite the representation provided by the Extreme Hangout presentations, youth voices still lack sufficient regard in policy making conversations. This was evident in another presentation I attended, “ActNowFilm: Youth Climate Leaders as Agents of Change,” which highlighted the experiences of two young climate leaders, Dorcas Mugo and Dawda Cham. A significant topic of conversation in this panel was how youth activists are treated in the realm of policy making. It was evident that Mugo and Cham’s perspectives are not sufficiently considered due to their age, despite their viewpoints being critical to policy decisions. It is especially important to consider how young perspectives are disregarded during climate change conversations while at COP, as youth delegates must be treated with increased consideration to help find climate solutions.

Significant strides have seemingly been made to bring youth perspectives into the climate change space. However, it is essential for their viewpoints to be taken seriously to make progress in addressing the climate crisis at hand.

 

Jackie Flaherty is majoring in Marketing and Urban & Community Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

This year, the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) has the power to do something exceptional. With stakeholders, negotiators, and observers from across the world in attendance (including myself), this should be a special moment to focus on the issues that matter most. COP29 has been referred to as the “finance COP” due to its significance in readdressing the financial obligations of all parties involved. While this event occurs annually, this conference specifically plays a critical role in geopolitical financial responsibilities for years to come.

With this in mind, I journeyed through the Blue Zone at Baku Stadium in Azerbaijan, the host location for this year’s conference. This event is traditionally split between two sections, both the Green and Blue Zones. As of this writing, I have only explored the Blue Zone, which serves as the venue for formal negotiations, panels, and pavilion events. The Green Zone, from what I have heard, offers a more interactive experience with activity hubs and side panels featuring various stakeholders.

My week began on Monday, November 18, observing official proceedings in the Plenary Hall. The most impactful moment of COP29 so far came during the very first event I attended. Attorney General Graham Leung of Fiji delivered a passionate address, stating: “On finance ambition, let me emphasize again that an ambitious outcome must focus not only on how much but also on how the finance will flow.” (FBC News)  His concern highlighted a pressing issue: many parties to existing global climate agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, have yet to pay their fair share of the commitment. Even among those who have contributed, questions remain about whether these contributions are leading in the correct direction — both in terms of communities and industries. Leung called for strong financial provisions and a minimum threshold to ensure fair and effective resource allocation for loss, damage, and adaptation efforts. 

It is undeniably true that some countries have sought to exploit the principles of the Paris Climate Agreement, including their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). During a Sustainable Transport panel at the Canadian Pavilion, it was revealed that certain nations have focused on building more roads to score points toward meeting their NDCs, while neglecting critical investments in public transportation infrastructure.

This was the prevailing theme on my first day — parties voicing dissatisfaction with the efforts of others. Informally, Monday seemed dominated by a “blame game” atmosphere. This was no surprise as world leaders spent their days during the world summit last week, antagonizing and throwing blame across the world stage of who was responsible rather than offering solutions. What should also not go unnoticed is the fact that many countries who are here are the ones accountable for the mess that we find ourselves in.

Major oil-producing countries, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc, all have a larger-than-expected presence at this summit. Most have glamorous and extravagant pavilion locations, dishing out free food to all who would like, attempting to greenwash their history when it comes to oil production. Let it be known that we are not perfect either. Both the United States as well as China face their own hypocrisy on the world stage, championing climate solutions while being among the biggest contributors to the problem. To objectively view these talks, it is essential to approach them with an awareness of this underlying hypocrisy and complexity.

COP29 has not been as grim as I initially made it out to be. On Tuesday, November 19, and Wednesday, November 20, I drew on my first-day experiences to better prepare for reentering the Blue Zone. I knew that I actively enjoyed the pavilions as parties were tasked with managing their own panels. Building on that understanding, I attended the British Pavilion event on Active Transport. One striking fact from the panel was that every dollar invested in public transportation yields a $5 return on investment. The discussion focused on strategies to promote sustainable transit initiatives to local communities. During the event, I had the opportunity to meet British Member of Parliament (MP) Mary Creagh who was also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Nature. She gave me some of the most important advice I could have received at this point in my life. As a Planning and Zoning Commissioner in my hometown of South Windsor, CT, promoting urbanist principles can sometimes be a challenging endeavor. I asked her for insights on achieving breakthroughs, and she emphasized the importance of empathetic leadership and storytelling to persuade stakeholders and drive progress. Her guidance could not have come at a better time in my journey.

If you were to ask me for my takeaway from COP29 so far with what remains, I would say to be critical but ambitious about what is possible. The majority of attendees understand the setting we are all in. Every COP cannot be a landmark oasis of agreements and principles. Yet, each conference holds the potential to lay crucial groundwork, build momentum, and inspire the bold actions needed to address our shared climate crisis.

 

Alan Cavagnaro is a Political Science and Urban and Community Studies major in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

So far at COP my experience has been a mix of many emotions and observations. I spent my first two days at the UN climate change conference within the Blue Zone, where negotiators gather, and nations showcase their sustainability efforts in the pavilion. The opportunities to engage with people operating at the highest levels of the respective governments surrounded me.  

There were only a few nations that I was able to visit before going to some panels that interested me. In that short time, I learned various things I’d never otherwise be exposed to: the legal frameworks of climate action in the African Union, the commitments of the UK to the youth clause in current negotiations, and the unique systems of sustainable development tracking being deployed in China. Two of the most impactful experiences that I had were my time attending the UN adaptation and emissions gap reports and my experience being on two panels relating to sustainability in higher education. The first experience featured authors of the UN reports giving overviews of their chapters in the report and discussing the urgency of immediate action. A large focus of this year’s COP is on finance, and mentioned in the adaptation report was that there was a gap of 200-400 billion USD missing in adaptation funding every year from where the world needs to be to meet our goal of keeping global average warming under 1.5 degrees. In stark contrast to this figure, the U.S. delegation spoke proudly in a meeting with students from the U.S. at COP about the 11 billion USD the Biden administration had released for climate adaption worldwide. It’s disheartening to see firsthand the huge gulf between where we are and where we need to be.  

This was a common theme that I felt continuing in the two panels that I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to appear on. Both panels covered sustainability in higher education and something that I spoke on in both panels was the importance of having universities serve as examples for students to see what sustainability looks like in practice. Because it is a fact that universities, across the U.S. especially, are not where they need to be in terms of progression towards mitigating their contributions to the climate crisis. This looks like decarbonization of campuses, divestment from fossil fuels, and interdisciplinary climate education curriculum to prepare all students for the issue that will define us as a generation. So much of what I am seeing at COP reminds me that solutions will not stem entirely from top-down solutions and international cooperation frameworks, but local action that propels political systems to into action.  

I am reminded in my time here that there is still so much work to do, so much that must be accomplished, and so much that stands in the way of the necessary change that must come to pass if we are to have any hope for our futures.

 

Dylan Steer is a Political Science and Environmental Studies major in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

COP29 is a true hodgepodge of information from countries, indigenous populations, corporations, nonprofits, and all the way down to the individual level. There has been a swarm of information from every corner of the climate crisis and from every stakeholder involved. On Monday, November 18, I attended the Green Zone, a less restrictive and more open space that featured the lived experiences of climate activists and panels on youth presence and solutions in the climate space. On Tuesday, November 19, I attended the Blue Zone, a more expansive area that features both closed and open negotiations, press conferences, and direct interaction with delegations, with the day focusing on food, agriculture, and water. Both zones showed that this conference is about spreading information and how we, as observers, engage with it.

In the Blue Zone, I have felt the urge to question all discussions, as I felt a lack of authentic connections with climate change. For example, the panel “Action on Water: Water Solutions for Climate Actions” emphasized water-inspired climate solutions and actions across the globe, with an emphasis on the leadership of youth, women, and local and indigenous communities. However, they did not feature the voices of those directly affected. Despite being a helpful and interesting panel on water solutions, it is important to recognize what is missing from the whole picture and what specific communities have to say about these solutions.

While in the Green Zone, I was exclusively hearing from those directly affected and adapting to climate change. One that stood out was Enkhuun Byambadorj, Director of Operations & Co-founder of Breathe Mongolia – Clean Air Coalition, who shared the narrative of coal in Mongolia. Her home has been disproportionately affected by climate change which has created a cycle of worsening air pollution that further endangers the livelihood of Mongolian citizens. Now, years later, the cycle has only gotten deeper and more difficult to leave. Enkhuun was able to connect a lived experience to her activism, with the purpose of educating and raising awareness. Recognizing the authenticity of her message made it easier to trust. She included the perspective of those affected (herself included) and solutions provided by the government, despite not being successful. Her only purpose was to shed light on the narratives being built and how those do not directly translate into easy action.

As a first time United Nations observer, my biggest takeaway was to critically engage with what I am hearing. This can be recognizing where the information flows from, the motives, and who is the audience. I think that will be crucial going into the last few days of COP29!

 

Naiiya Patel is an Accounting major in the School of Business.

Attending COP29 as a young college student, it’s easy to get swept up in the negative rhetoric surrounding the conference. Criticisms abound, whether it’s the choice of Azerbaijan as the host—a major oil-producing country with a contentious human rights record—or the constant media headlines questioning the efficacy of the event: “Should We Get Rid of COP?” or “Climate Negotiations Going Nowhere.” Concerns about private sector involvement, from corporate pavilions to lobbying efforts, add fuel to the skepticism. But here’s the thing: focusing solely on the negatives doesn’t move us forward. Criticism is important for progress, and institutions like COP must be held accountable. However, dwelling on flaws without working towards solutions, risks derailing the very goals the conference aims to achieve. Over the first two days in the Green Zone, I’ve encountered a more nuanced perspective—one that prioritizes collaboration over condemnation.

Takeaway 1: Context Matters

One of the first lessons I’ve learned is the importance of understanding the broader context behind so-called “polluters.” From a position of privilege, it’s easy to judge, but the reality for many is far more complex. Take Mongolia, for example. Due to harsh winters and a lack of energy infrastructure, many Mongolian households rely on burning coal for heat. While this contributes to pollution, it’s not a choice—it’s a necessity for survival. This isn’t an individual failing but a systemic issue, where governments must step up to provide sustainable alternatives. Blaming individuals for polluting ignores the structures that force them into these situations. True solutions require addressing those root causes.

Takeaway 2: The Role of the Private Sector

Another realization is that the private sector plays a critical role in climate funding and innovation. For nations in the Global South, smaller islands, and low-income countries, transitioning to renewable energy or building climate-resilient economies isn’t feasible without significant financial support. Private sector funding can bridge this gap, providing the resources needed to implement solutions and foster innovation. While skepticism towards corporate motives is valid, dismissing their involvement outright undermines the potential for progress. Strategic partnerships with the private sector can drive tangible change and empower nations to develop their own sustainable solutions.

Takeaway 3: COP Is Imperfect—But Essential

My final takeaway is that COP, despite its flaws, is irreplaceable. Calls to abandon the conference or dismiss it entirely ignore its unique value. For many smaller nations, COP represents a rare chance to voice their concerns on a global stage. Indigenous communities share their knowledge and experiences, scientists present groundbreaking research, and underrepresented nations demand attention from larger powers. Yes, COP has its challenges. But instead of allowing criticism to overshadow its purpose, we must work within the system to improve it. Progress requires collaboration, and COP provides a platform where diverse voices come together to tackle one of humanity’s greatest challenges.

Mariam Vargas is a Political Science and International Relations individualized major in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.