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