Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 9, 2019

T

hough we are basking 
in the light of the new 
year, we cannot forget 
an utterly devastating realization 
that the world came to after the 
Intergovernmental 
Panel 
on 
Climate Change released a special 
report regarding global warming 
near the end of 2018: Continued 
human activity causing greenhouse 
gas emissions will raise the global 
temperature by 1.5 degrees Celsius 
by 2040, predictably causing severe 
and unprecedented effects of climate 
change. Perhaps the most feared 
aspect of this issue is the unknown 
and the questions that arise from the 
sole phrase “climate change”. We 
have come to connote this phrase as 
something that we should be fearful 
of, but why? In essence, I believe that 
when we choose to come to terms 
with the issues of climate change and 
educate ourselves on what must be 
done to prevent it, then we will open 
ourselves up to a collective that will 
make the large-scale effort feasible. 
Furthermore, it is crucial to outline 
how the effects of the predicted 
climate change will affect all of our 
lives, not to strike fear into your 
hearts but for the reason that we will 
all be able to do more when we know 
more.
As a result of increased global 
warming, public health, food and 
water security, human security and 
international 
economic 
growth 
are likely subject to risks by climate 
change. The IPCC is highly to 
moderately confident that increased 
global temperatures will cause 
complications for the livelihood 
of disadvantaged and vulnerable 
populations, intensify the risks of 
ozone-related illnesses and vector-
borne diseases and minimize the 
net yields of crops among major 
continents. As we continue activities 
that increase the overall temperature 
of the atmosphere, we are making 
ourselves more susceptible to disease 
and impoverished conditions in 
underprivileged areas. Ultimately, 
this exemplifies how the populations 
of all lifeforms susceptible to 
calamities will not be the ones who 
are directly contributing to the 

damage, and thus spur arguments 
that global injustice has become 
prominent in the wake of self-
propelling maneuvers made by 
world leaders. Not only will we be 
affected by the complications created 
for our public health, but we will also 
be responsible for the leaders we 
choose to direct our state towards 
just or injust climate action.
Current pathways that have 
been suggested for limiting global 
warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius 
will require rapid and extensive 
transitions in energy, land, urban 
infrastructure 
and 
industrial 
systems. The IPCC is highly 
confident that the use of existing 
technologies to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions in industry will 
be limited by economic capacity 
and large-scale industrial capacity. 
Additionally, the transition of 
urban 
infrastructure 
will 
be 
limited by institutional and socio-
cultural 
barriers. 
Finally, 
the 
transition of agricultural land use 
will be limited by technological 
and 
environmental 
barriers 
across regions. As we take steps 
that attempt to reduce the overall 
temperature of the atmosphere, 
we will be challenged by the 
interconnection of the sectors 
within our society that will be 
affected accordingly. As a result, 
people of all societal sectors will 
have to develop effective methods 
of collaboration and diplomacy 
as we look to compromise on 
the optimal way to proceed with 
generating solutions.
While we maintain hope that 
we can alleviate the climate change 
issue with the correct action, it is 
important to understand that the 
scale of adaptation that will be 
necessary if we fail to completely 
mitigate these issues may not be 
of a capacity that is feasible to us. 
The IPCC is moderately confident 
that while there are dozens of 
adaptation options for reducing 
the risk to natural and managed 
ecosystems, sea level rise and 
economic growth in urban areas 
and adaptation to ecosystems, food 
and health systems will likely be 

more challenging. This is due to 
the adaptation capacity of these 
vulnerable regions becoming more 
limited with increased warming. 
Furthermore, it is important that 
we begin to strategize how we 
can eliminate the issues posed 
by climate change completely 
rather than prepare to adapt to the 
repercussions, because it is unlikely 
that successful and total adaptation 
will be possible.
Despite my worries regarding 
global warming and climate change, 
I am confident that the steps taken by 
institutions hosting leaders in public 
research and initiatives towards 
developing solutions for these large-
scale environmental issues will 
continue growing in significance 
and thus contribute to implemented 
solutions. As a part of the Blue 
Sky Initiative formed during the 
end of 2017, a team composed of 
professors, directors and program 
managers within various schools 
at the University of Michigan was 
created in the summer of 2018 to 
create the Global CO2 Initiative. 
The objective of this team is to 
research and identify commercially 
sustainable approaches that can 
be pursued to reduce global CO2 
emissions using a system-level 
process of technology assessment, 
technology 
development 
and 
commercialization. 
Principal 
investigator Volker Sick, a professor 
at the University, has expressed the 
team’s eagerness to follow through 
with the initiative in a statement 
following the 24th Conference of 
the Parties to the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate 
Change held in December 2018, 
“The conclusion of COP24 in Poland 
we believe marks the end of official 
climate 
diplomacy 
and 
begins 
the era of climate action. Carbon 
management 
technologies 
and 
policies will be part of this new era 
and we are excited about sharing in 
this mission with all of you.”

New year, same climate vulnerability

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

Kianna Marquez can be reached at 

kmarquez@umich.edu.

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINN STORER
Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
 MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Should Britain really Brexit – and can they?

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

I

n the summer of 2016, Great 
Britain stunned the world 
by 
passing 
the 
“Brexit” 
referendum to leave the European 
Union. 
However, 
as 
Britain’s 
deadline to finalize a deal with the 
European Union over the terms 
of their departure grows nearer, 
the mood in Britain is starting to 
change. The sense of confusion 
that had previously enveloped the 
debate over Brexit is slowly being 
replaced by panic, as Britain inches 
closer to the March 29 deadline with 
no deal in place. As beleaguered 
Prime Minister Theresa May 
desperately negotiates with both 
Parliament and the European 
Union, something has become 
clear: Britain shouldn’t leave the 
European Union, and under the 
terms Brexit was voted through on, 
it really can’t.
First, there’s the simple fact 
that leaving the European Union 
would create problems for Britain. 
According to research done by the 
Confederation of British Industry 
in 2016, 71 percent of CBI member 
businesses 
reported 
that 
the 
Britain’s membership in the EU 
has had an overall positive impact 
on their business. The positive 
impacts these businesses mention 
are likely tied to the numerous 
economic benefits Britain receives 
as an EU member: access to a single 
European market through the 
elimination of tariffs between EU 
member states and the increased 
negotiating power Britain had in 
the global marketplace thanks 
to the EU’s ability to negotiate 
as one entity. Additionally, the 
EU’s free movement policies have 
proved beneficial for both British 
businesses, who used the policies 
to plug labor gaps with foreign 
workers, and British citizens, who 
used the policies to find jobs abroad 
in other EU states (there are more 
than 
750,000 
British 
citizens 
working abroad in the EU). While 
nationalists complain about the 
influx of immigrants from poorer 
Eastern European countries such 
as Poland and Hungary, Britain 
needs immigration. Since 1973, 
Britain’s birth rate has been below 
replacement level every year (it is 
currently 1.8 births per couple). An 
aging, declining population would 
put an immense strain on Britain’s 
public services. To top it all off, 

Britain’s position within the EU is 
already more advantageous than 
that of a standard member: Britain 
is allowed to use its own currency, 
the British pound, meaning the 
value of its currency is not tied to 
the economies of other EU nations.
While 
pontificating 
about 
the economic advantages Britain 
currently enjoys as an EU member 
is one thing, another grimmer 
and more immediate issue faces 
Brexit right now: On the terms 
it was promised, it appears to 
be 
completely 
infeasible. 
For 
starters, using a simple majority 
as a trigger for leaving the EU was 
a nonsensical decision that went 
against Britain’s own precedent. 
In 1975, Britain held the United 
Kingdom European Communities 
membership referendum, which 
was a vote on whether they 
should remain in the European 
Economic Community. The British 
government carried out this vote 
to demonstrate public support; 
subsequently, 67 percent of the 
electorate voted to remain a part of 
said Common Market. To ensure 
consistency, this same procedure 
should have been used when 
leaving the EU, and would have 
helped ensure strong support for 
leaving, instead of the chaotic mess 
Britain currently finds itself in. 
Potentially, there could be grounds 
for holding another Brexit vote 
on the principle that a 60 percent 
majority should be required.
Secondly, Brexit negotiations 
will 
simply 
never 
satisfy 
Parliament, making a deal between 
the European Union and Britain 
unworkable (and for Britain, the 
only thing worse than leaving 
the EU with a bad deal is leaving 
the EU with no deal at all). The 
simple truth is that there are too 
many parties and too many issues 
— it would be near impossible 
for May to come up with a deal 
that appeases everyone. Between 
trade regulations, oversight of the 
Ireland-Northern Ireland border, 
and the status of customs unions, 
there are too many partisan 
interests at play for May to create a 
solid coalition.
Parliament isn’t the only group 
May 
cannot 
persuade; 
British 
citizens who voted to leave might 
have even higher expectations of 
what May can wrestle out of the 

EU. The abundant lies spread by the 
Leave campaign in the lead-up to the 
Brexit vote drive these unrealistically 
high expectations. As part of their 
campaign, Leave guaranteed that 
leaving the EU would allow an 
additional £350 million per week 
to be invested into National Health 
Services, while economic analysis 
showed the actual number was 
closer to £250 million (the campaign 
was called out for this lie a few days 
before the vote and walked back 
on it, but not before convincing 
nearly half of British voters it was 
true). Additionally, Daniel Hannan, 
a member of Parliament for the 
Conservative Party who helped lead 
the Brexit movement, said before the 
vote, “Absolutely nobody is talking 
about threatening our place in the 
single market.” Since then, May has 
repeatedly explained that leaving 
the EU means leaving the single 
market. In creating a campaign 
backed heavily by falsehood and 
exaggeration, Leave has placed 
unattainable expectations on May, 
meaning no deal she brings back can 
satisfy British citizens who voted for 
Brexit on the basis of Leave’s false 
promises.
While 
Britain 
should 
do 
everything it can to try to stay in 
the EU, overturning Brexit will 
be difficult. With May unlikely to 
back down, the responsibility falls 
to Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the 
opposition Labour Party, to call for a 
no confidence vote, allowing Labour 
to gain a majority in Parliament and 
hold a referendum to overturn the 
initial decision. It might not be easy, 
but with so little time left to avoid a 
no-deal Brexit, it seems like Britain’s 
best option.
Lastly, this piece only exists 
because of deceptive campaigning 
and ill-informed voting. In a 
world heavily influenced by social 
media, it is more important than 
ever that we hold institutions 
accountable for what they publish, 
and simultaneously work to be 
informed citizens and voters. 
While we at home haven’t voted 
for anything as long-term or 
consequential as Brexit, the mere 
existence of this column is a 
reminder of the duties we have as 
citizens of a democracy.

Zack Blumberg can be reached at 

zblumber@umich.edu.

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU.

MILES STEPHENSON | COLUMN

S

croll through the average 
news or social media feed 
and you’ll see exclamations 
about the end of times. Whether a 
claim about the incoming nuclear 
war, Trumpmania and the fall of 
democracy, or an indictment of 
children’s 
overconsumption 
of 
technology, many seem to be up in 
arms about the state of the world in 
2019. But how bad are things truly? 
And how does the world today 
compare to the world just a few 
generations ago?
Surely if the world was nearing 
apocalyptic standards we would 
see 
an 
increase 
in 
negative 
statistics, particularly in the youth 
of today. As the sample of the 
population that would be most 
likely to reflect the consequences 
of modern societal changes, we 
should see an increase in violence or 
drug use or hateful demonstrations 
among today’s youth if the panic 
were to be believed. This, however, 
is the opposite of reality. Today, 
teens are using less drugs and 
alcohol than the generations that 
came before them, having less 
unprotected sex and are exercising 
more, reflecting an unprecedented 
societal 
consciousness 
about 
physical well-being. Despite the 
sensationalist 
media 
coverage, 
gun violence is far lower now than 
in 1993 (a whopping 49 percent 
decrease), teens are less likely to 
bring weapons to school, and teens 
are less likely to fight at school. 
Teens are also more proficient 
in 
writing 
and 
mathematics, 
more likely to wear seatbelts and 
less likely to experience hate 
comments. As the news website 
Vox puts it, “today’s teenagers are 
the best-behaved generation on 
record.” So where does this massive 
concern for the “smartphone” 
generation 
come 
from? 
Some 
experts point to “juvenoia,” or the 
exaggerated fear of the effects of 
social change on youth, as the root 
cause. Michael Stevens, a popular 
American educator, explains this 
phenomenon. 
“Children 
are 
the future of the species, so it’s 
reasonable to assume that nature 
would select for features in a 
species that cause adult members 
to prefer the way they were raised 
and distrust anything different. 
After all, parents by definition, 
were 
a 
reproductive 
success 
for the species; they made new 

members. So whatever choices and 
influences brought them to that 
point must have been good enough. 
Any deviation from that could be a 
problem.”
But perhaps these seismic crises 
must be viewed from a worldwide 
perspective, not just from the well-
being of the newest generations. 
From this standpoint, however, 
nearly every positive statistic about 
human life has increased as well. 
Around the globe, life expectancy 
has doubled since 1800. In the 
next three decades, more people 
will receive formal education 

than in all of human history up 
to this point, and everywhere 
people are earning three times 
more than they did in 1950. World 
Resources Institute reports that 
“Worldwide, the number of people 
living on less than $1 per day-the 
international standard for extreme 
poverty-has dropped from 1.25 
billion in 1990 to 986 million in 
2004,” and even countries in 
states of extreme privation today 
have 
lower 
infant 
mortality 
rates than the most successful, 
safe countries in 1950. Since the 
dawn of humans, inequities have 
persisted, and it is unlikely that 
we will ever eradicate them from 
society. That said, the general 
standard of living has improved 
for the average person. Those that 
would have once been relegated to 
famine and homelessness in a past 
society can now enjoy experiences 
that would have been viewed as 
luxuries for most of history. As 
the Heritage Foundation reports, 
“The typical poor household, as 
defined by the government, has a 
car and air conditioning, two color 
televisions, cable or satellite TV, a 
DVD player, and a VCR.” This point 
is made not to belittle the woes of 
those struggling with poverty, 
but instead to show how far the 

definition of what it means to be 
“poor” in the world has improved. 
This revolution is largely from 
contributions 
in 
science 
and 
medicine from countries like the 
United States and from institutions 
dedicated to the improvement of 
mankind including the University 
of Michigan.
Even when looking at the 
state of the environment, a realm 
of news saturated with doomsday 
predictions, the prevalence of the six 
major pollutants – carbon monoxide, 
lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, 
ozone and PM2.5 – in the atmosphere 
has fallen dramatically. Furthermore, 
carbon emissions in the United States 
have decreased steadily since the 
1940s and the biggest trend of 2018, 
“The Straw Ban,” helped introduce 
the issue of plastic pollution in our 
oceans to the public imagination. 
This isn’t to say the environment 
faces no ecological issues. There’s a 
long road ahead for humans in their 
struggle to manage the health of the 
planet and to mitigate the effects 
of climate change, but I believe 
no solution will be met before we 
consider an appropriate appreciation 
for how technology and the Internet 
has helped us make things better.
The quality of life on Earth is 
increasing every day, and nearly 
every statistic available argues that 
there is no better time for a human 
to exist on our planet than this very 
moment. And yet, this apocalyptic 
thinking endures. For most of history, 
this kind of thinking would have 
been appropriate, as disease, famine, 
oppression and suffering plagued 
the majority of humans. But in 2019, 
I believe we need to update our 
outlook. I’m not advocating for blind 
positivity, nor the lack of appropriate 
criticism when corruption or the 
misallocation of resources occurs. 
Instead, as I reflect on the coming 
of the new year, I advocate for an 
appreciation of the unprecedented 
well-being of mankind and the 
role technology and medicine have 
played in improving life on our 
planet. Research and educational 
institutions like the University must 
continue to do their part in improving 
humanity, but it’s OK, from time to 
time, to stand back and marvel at the 
genius of the modern world.

In 2019, let’s celebrate humanity

Miles Stephenson can be reached at 

mvsteph@umich.edu.

There is no better 
time for a human 
to exist on our 
planet than this 
very moment

