Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, September 5, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
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
S
ince its introduction by
U.S. Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.,
earlier this year, the Green
New Deal — a sweeping
proposal
for
widespread
climate-centric
reforms
— has dominated political
discussion on climate policy.
I believe climate change is
probably the most pressing
and
consequential
issue
facing the United States. I
also oppose the Green New
Deal.
Perhaps those statements
seem
contradictory,
and
perhaps “oppose” is a bit
strong;
implementing
the
GND is far better than doing
nothing, and several of the
plan’s components — such
as modernizing our nation’s
infrastructure and investing
in renewable energy — are long
overdue. I, along with many
others on the center-left, am
strongly skeptical that the
Green New Deal is the right
path forward. While many left-
wing critics of the GND point
to its political impracticality,
the plan’s substance is equally
concerning.
It’s difficult to estimate
the
quantitative
effect
the GND would have
on
carbon emissions, since the
resolution
Ocasio-Cortez
introduced
was
more
of
a
vague
outline
than
a
detailed piece of legislation.
What is clear is that the
GND is a hodge-podge of
command-and-control
style
regulations such as building
a high-speed rail network to
“eliminate the need for air
travel” and “upgrading all
existing buildings” for energy
efficiency. These proposals
are bold ideas, but they will
inefficiently,
and
perhaps
insufficiently,
reduce
our
carbon emissions.
The solution is far simpler:
Carbon
pricing
through
either a carbon tax or a cap-
and-trade system, which are
the most efficient and cost-
effective
ways
to
reduce
emissions. Carbon emissions,
as any economist can tell you,
are a classic externality. This
means they have external
social costs (including, for
example,
sea-level
rise,
extreme weather, health risks
and much more) but emitters
do not pay for — and therefore
don’t consider — these costs
when deciding how much to
emit. This leads to excessive
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases.
Taxing carbon emissions
at the rate of the social cost
of these emissions will lead
to a socially optimal amount
of emissions, which will be
lower than current amounts.
A cap-and-trade system works
similarly, but instead of setting
the price of carbon emissions
and letting the market figure
out the quantity, a cap-and-
trade plan caps the quantity of
emissions by issuing permits
to emit and letting the market
trade permits and decide their
price.
Ideally,
either
plan
would be revenue neutral: All
government revenue from the
tax or selling permits would
be rebated to lower-income
communities to assist with
potentially high energy costs
or
invested
in
renewable
energy technology.
There are still finer details
to work out under either
system — calculating the social
cost of carbon to determine
the
ideal
tax
amount,
covering
other
greenhouse
gases like methane, creating
a border carbon adjustment
for imported goods, among
others — but compared to
other policy priorities like
reducing poverty or fixing the
health care system, solving
climate change is tantalizingly
achievable.
Moreover,
carbon
pricing
is
more
easily incorporated into an
international system, which
is critical since international
collaboration
and
globally
coordinated
policies
are
essential
to
solve
climate
change.
For all the Green New
Deal’s bold ideas, noticeably
absent is any carbon pricing
proposal.
Some
proponents
point to a line briefly stating
the need to “account for the
true cost of emissions,” as a
reference to carbon pricing,
but
this
vague
statement
hardly
constitutes
a
true
proposal.
Ocasio-Cortez
confirmed
the absence of carbon pricing
in statements to NPR, in which
she said that a carbon tax or
cap-and-trade plan would be
at most a “tiny part” of the
GND and be initially “off the
table.” She continued to say
that carbon pricing “misses
the point” and “assumes the
existing market will solve this
problem for us.”
This characterization of
carbon pricing is egregiously
inaccurate
and
borderline
nonsensical. Carbon pricing
doesn’t “assume the existing
market will solve the problem
for us” — it recognizes the
failure of the current market
to address emissions. The
whole point of carbon pricing
is to intervene with sensible
taxes or emission caps to
allow market forces to reduce
emissions
in
a
way
that
maximizes
efficiency
and
minimizes economic loss. Keep
in mind that these answers
were
prepared,
written
statements, not off-the-cuff
remarks — they represent a
grave flaw in Ocasio-Cortez’s
understanding
of
climate
policy,
not
an
innocent
misstatement.
It is discouraging to see
so
many
other
Democrats
abandon
market-based
solutions to climate change.
Despite the fact that the
most
promising
state-level
and
international
climate
plans are carbon tax and cap-
and-trade systems, through
four rounds of Democratic
debates,
each
of
which
devoted time to discussing
climate change, only U.S. Sen.
Kirsten
Gillibrand,
D-N.Y.,
and former U.S. Rep. John
Delaney, D-Md., brought up
market-based carbon pricing
mechanisms.
Lastly,
a
carbon
tax
proposal is far more practical
to pass than the GND. Far-left
Democrats have grown fond
of scoffing at the importance
of practicality, but the hard
truth is that a climate plan
is virtually meaningless at
this stage unless it can be
enacted. The GND has met
universal
opposition
from
Republicans and several red-
state Democrats. It is frankly
unpassable, even if Democrats
manage to retake the Senate
and the White House in 2020.
Passing a carbon pricing
plan will also be difficult
but far more realistic. The
late Senator John McCain
supported
a
cap-and-trade
system
during
his
2008
presidential campaign, and an
admittedly imperfect carbon
tax bill in the House has
Democratic and Republican
co-sponsors. While those on
the far-left jeer at market
solutions, they’d be wise to
remember the urgency of
climate change. We only have
time for one major push to get
emissions under control, and
it’s imperative we get it right.
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
The substantive flaw of the Green New Deal
I
f you have followed the news
the last couple weeks, you
have seen loads of articles
predicting economic Armageddon.
It is possible the media’s hysteria
may
have
tangible
negative
economic
impacts,
but
I
am
sufficiently stressed, so I will join
the chorus. A brief disclaimer: All of
this terror is preemptive. Economic
trends can change, and if they do,
this article and the anxiety that
bred it would be rendered moot. And
always remember that economists
have a less than stellar record when
it comes to predicting recessions.
But, for now, the stress is real!
And if the forecasters are right,
we — college students — will
disproportionately feel it. Over the
last year, pessimism about the U.S.
economy’s outlook has become
routine as the stock market has
fluctuated along with President
Donald Trump’s tariff whims. But
this is different. On Aug. 14 the yield
curve inverted, meaning the interest
rates on 10-year government bonds
were lower than those for two-year
bonds. In other words, the market
began thinking the U.S. economy’s
long-term outlook was less risky
than its short-term. That set off lots
of alarms. The last six inversions
of the yield curve each preceded
a recession. The typical lag time?
Between one and two years, meaning
many current college students could
very likely enter a recessionary
economy post-graduation. As young
people entering the labor market,
a recession would have a serious
impact on our futures — more than
any other generation.
Academic
research
shows
that graduates entering the labor
force during a recession are kind of
screwed. They are more likely to be
unemployed, since firms hire less
during recessions. If someone does
manage to land their first job, they
are more likely to be overqualified
for it because firms become more
risk averse. And those impacts
last. Initial overqualification has
long term consequences since it
can delay promotion and reduce
motivation. Recession graduates
also have lower starting salaries,
and though the gap is modest, it
persists for approximately 10 to 15
years after labor market entry.
Those 10 to 15 years of
diminished income matter, and
research shows they impact the
rest of recession graduates’ lives. By
the time the income gap fades, key
personal financial decisions may
have been delayed or abandoned.
For example, recession graduates
are less likely to be married, have
children, buy a home or car. They
also start saving for retirement
later.
The impacts are also behavioral.
Not to get too morbid, but recession
graduates are more likely to die in
middle age. It is not clear why. One
suggestion is financial precarity
throughout the first 10 to 15 years of
work leads to less healthy lifestyle
choices. The other possibility is
without consistent or challenging
work, an unstable transition from
school into the labor market makes
it more difficult to shed unhealthy
habits from school, like binge
drinking or poor sleep habits. No
matter the cause, it is not a happy
picture.
Recessions disproportionately
impact
many
demographic
groups, not just college graduates.
According to an ACLU report,
by 2031, the Great Recession will
have reduced the wealth in Black
households by 29 percent more
than in white ones. Furthermore,
a
higher
proportion
of
low-
income households reported they
were in worse shape after the
Great Recession than wealthier
households. And though college
graduates suffer, recessions are far
more destructive for high school
graduates
entering
the
labor
market.
The possibility of graduating
into a recession would be a
bummer if it was part of the natural
economic cycle, but it is particularly
frustrating because this potential
recession has been expedited. The
first and most obvious preventable
cause is President Trump’s trade
war with China, which has raised
consumer prices and unsettled
investors. The second attainable
way to prevent or delay recessions
in countries with labor shortages is
to increase immigration. Much of
the international economic anxiety
is over reports of recessions in
developed economies experiencing
population loss, like Japan, United
Kingdom and Germany (also the
United States). Yet none of them have
meaningfully increased immigration
to fill open jobs. Meanwhile, at the
time of this writing, the Trump
administration is denying that we
may be headed towards a recession
for political purposes and has thus
ignored any of the preventative steps
it could take.
The potential that we may
be
recession
graduates
thanks
to our government’s economic
mismanagement has filled me with
a lot of frustration for the past couple
weeks, but in the research, there is a
silver lining. Recession graduates are
on average happier than labor market
entrants into a healthy economy.
The theory behind the data is
recession graduates are just grateful
to be working and spend less time
thinking about other possible career
paths. Recession graduates also
seem to be less narcissistic, perhaps
because they had to overcome
more hardship during their initial
working years. These attitudes can
have tangible manifestations. CEOs
who were recession graduates were
less likely to commit a certain kind
of business fraud (backdating stock
options) ubiquitous at the turn of
the century.
How the economy fares over
the next couple years will likely have
a disproportionately large impact
on the rest of our lives. If things go
poorly, our bad graduation timing
will limit our generation in many
tangible ways. That is scary, but
ultimately beyond our direct control.
What is partly under our control
is how we approach the work we
are doing. Instead of letting fear
and frustration consume us, we
should focus on channeling the
philosophy that recession graduates
hold: An appreciation of the work
we do, regardless of the economic
conditions around us.
A
s the 2020 presidential
election rears its head
over America, so does the
bitter tension and frustration that
arose from the aftermath of the
2016 election. After 2016’s Election
Day,
businessman
President
Trump claimed the presidency
through the Electoral College, but
former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton defeated Trump through
the popular vote. This situation
reignited a nationwide debate
about the efficacy of the Electoral
College. And that very same debate
has reappeared as the 2020 election
begins.
Mainstream
Democratic
candidates vying for the
presidency — including U.S. Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., U.S.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.
— have expressed some desire
to outright abolish the Electoral
College. Other Democrats like
entrepreneur
Andrew
Yang
admit that the Electoral College
is antiquated to some extent.
With this growing opinion on the
Electoral College, it is important
to recognize not only its origins,
but also how the Electoral College
still fulfills its purpose within
the current American political
battlefield.
In
Doug
Linder’s
“The
Electoral College Debate,” he
recognizes that the Electoral
College provides states “a role …
in the selection of the president,
(reminding) us of their importance
in our federal system.” Some
would argue that the Electoral
College is counterintuitive to the
democratic values of the United
States. Linder cites in the same
article, a “a vote by a resident of
Wyoming counts about four times
more — electorally — than a vote
by a California resident.”
Though true in the context
of the electorate, that does not
mean that small states like
Wyoming hold disproportionate
and absolute federal power over
larger states like California. The
entire framework of the U.S. as a
democratic republic was designed
to divide power, and the Electoral
College and the presidency are
only allocated a slice of that power.
The electorate champions America
as a republic, and institutions
like the House of Representatives
champion America as a democracy.
The outright failure to recognize
or even consider why the Electoral
College
distributes
power
to
states in such a way demonstrates
a
limited
understanding
that
American politics expands far
beyond the presidency.
Look back to the 2016 election.
In an infographic published by
The New York Times, it showed
that Clinton won the popular vote
by “2.2 million” votes even though
“her votes were very concentrated
in only a few states.” She spent
little time in Michigan, never
visited Wisconsin, and focused
on Pennsylvania where she still
lost. She lost those states by a
collective total of roughly 73,000
votes. Imagine if the United States
operated on a popular system,
also known as a direct democracy.
Clinton would have secured the
presidency by concentrating her
efforts in the East and West Coasts.
The idea that a popular system
would be more fair than the
Electoral College is absurd. Direct
democracy as an idea is morally
antithetical to the values of civil
rights and equality. The French
Revolution first decided on their
system of government to be a direct
democracy, and look at the results: a
tyrannical and politically invincible
majority terrorizing and censoring
the concerns of the minority. With
direct democracy, the majority
would have unmatched power to
silence the minority, hypothetically
controlling the presidency and
at least one house of Congress.
The Electoral College gives the
minority and disenfranchised the
opportunity to control how their
society around them operates
without fear of being politically
sidelined.
This debate will surely continue
as “a 2018 report on America’s
future political demography found
four realistic scenarios in which
Democrats win the national popular
vote but lose the Electoral College
because of the geography of the
electorate.” With more Democrats
than
Republicans
preferring
a popular vote rather than the
Electoral College, 81 percent and
51 percent, respectively, it would be
reasonable to assume that if any of
these scenarios occur, it could lead
to more fervent calls to drastically
alter or even outright abolish the
Electoral College.
However,
these
knee-jerk
reactions to default to a supposedly
more “democratic” popular vote
lack both political and moral
foresight, possibly opening the
door for dangerous factions and
leaders to seize power in America.
The Electoral College does not
hinder the democratic process;
it emboldens it. It serves as a
reassurance that the politically
weak and deprived have the
opportunity to protect their civil
rights and community. A shock
to the system — whether that is
spontaneous
transformations
or immediate abolition — would
entail an inimical and rapid erosion
to the founding doctrines of the
United States, sideline political
minorities and create a far more
polarized and divisive political
landscape in the future.
In defense of the Electoral College
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN
Solomon Medintz can be reached
at smedintz@umich.edu.
Oh, to graduate during a recession
Joshua Kim can be reached at
joshica@umich.edu.
JOSHUA KIM | COLUMN
The Electoral
College does
not hinder the
democratic
process; it
emboldens it
A climate plan
is virtually
meaningless
at this stage
unless it can
be enacted
ATTEND A MASS MEETING
Join The Michigan Daily! We will be holding
mass meetings in the Newsroom, 420 Maynard
Street on September 10, 12, 15 and 18. Come
browse the different sections and learn more
about the paper.
A recession
would have a
serious impact
on our future