Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 30, 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
SONEIDA RODRIGUEZ | COLUMN
U.S. health care — without a care for the environment
C
limate
change
is
a
chronic disease. Thanks
to our lifestyle habits,
Earth has developed the airways
of a smoker, tumors of trash
and bodies of water poisoned
by pollution. It’s no secret that
our current treatment of the
Earth is killing the planet and
inadvertently killing ourselves.
As our campus saw last Friday
during
the
Global
Climate
Strike, the youth of today, are
not ignorant of this fact nor
willing to tolerate it any longer.
The question still remains as
to whether this spark of action
can be fanned into a flaming
movement. If the climate strike
movement is in need of tinder to
fuel its next initiative, then U.S.
hospitals should be the next
place it fans the flames.
As is the case for many
industries, health care has an
insatiable appetite for fossil fuel
energy, which inevitably leads
to greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gases are silent and
stealthy killers. One American
Journal of Public Health article
found
that
such
emissions
“will negatively affect public
health because of an increased
prevalence of extreme weather,
flooding, vector-borne disease
… and malnutrition.” While the
deadly effect of greenhouse gas
emissions is nothing new, the
fact that the U.S. health care
system is one of the world’s
largest contributors of lethal
greenhouse gases is an irony
that has been largely ignored
by most hospitals. Investigators
projected
greenhouse
gas
emissions
“associated
with
health care in the United States
would cause 123,000 to 381,000
disability-adjusted
life-years
in
future
health
damages.”
Ironically, the hospitals that
are entrusted with keeping
American communities healthy
are a major contributor to one
of humanity’s greatest threats.
In the words of a Popular
Science article, one 2013 study
found that between generating
energy, using medical supplies
and pharmaceuticals “the U.S.
healthcare system is responsible
for around 10 percent of the
total emissions in the United
States.” If all U.S. health care
facilities in the United States
were a country on their own,
that country would be the
seventh-largest
contributor
to carbon dioxide emissions
in the world, according to a
HealthLeads Article.
Unfortunately,
the
irony
of the U.S. health care does
not end with pollution. U.S
hospitals play a significant role
in growing America’s cancerous
piles of landfill trash. The
Healthcare Plastics Recycling
Council found that American
health care centers “generate
approximately 14,000 tons of
waste per day and that up to 25
percent of that waste is plastic
packaging and products.”
A collaborative report by
the Center of International
Environmental
Law
found
that the breakdown of plastics
in
landfills
or
through
incineration can lead to the
release of microplastics that
end up in the food we eat or the
air we breathe. Pollutants such
as phthalates and BPA can be
reabsorbed by surrounding soil
and water supplies.
In
response
to
these
environmental atrocities, some
would argue the U.S. health
care system should invest in
alternative energy sources like
solar power or wind turbines.
However, suggesting such a fix
is ignorant of hospitals’ limited
budgets and does nothing to
reduce plastic landfill waste.
Others
are
confident
that
incinerating
medical
waste
to
power
hospitals
is
the
answer. However, incineration
is
a
double-edged
sword.
Incineration
may
reduce
the
volume
of
waste,
but
according to the same Center
of International Environmental
Law report, the toxic chemicals
released from incineration are
just as problematic to our health
as the plastic left in landfills.
Instead, the solution lies
in rethinking plastic medical
supplies. I envision altering
plastic medical supplies, one
of the most common forms of
medical waste that ends up in
landfills, to be plant or biomass-
based. Researchers at Michigan
State University have already
found success in this venture,
according to Michigan Radio.
While
plant-based
medical
plastics is not a novel idea, I
propose this innovation could
go a step further by tailoring
these plant-based plastics to be
converted into energy without
the need for incineration.
Anaerobic digestion is the
process
by
which
energy
is
generated
through
the
breakdown
of
plant-based
material under intense heat
by bacteria. With the help of
this
technology,
municipal
plastic waste from health care
could power hospitals without
releasing greenhouse gasses.
Overnight,
plastic
medical
waste could transform from
being cancerous to cured.
Not only does climate change
demand we rethink medical
supplies, it also demands we
rethink health care recycling.
By
no
means
should
the
responsibility
of
reducing
health care’s environmental
impact fall only on hospitals.
As future patients or health
care
professionals,
we
are
also responsible. Therefore,
health care recycling should
be a grassroots movement.
Imagine if even a fraction of
the 3,500 tons of plastic that
U.S. health care facilities send
daily to landfills were properly
sanitized
and
recycled
to
make new medical supplies.
The same plastic waste that
could have ended up in a
landfill poisoning America’s
heartland could instead be
promoting heart health as a
new stethoscope.
Environmental
health
is
personal health. Unfortunately,
U.S. health care has yet to
recognize this truth. We simply
do not have time to wait for
health care leaders to realize
this. Every day, the chronic
disease
of
climate
change
only grows worse. While I
do not want to diminish the
importance of taking steps as
individuals to reduce, reuse
and recycle, I stand with the
Climate
Strike
and
know
demands for individual efforts
are not enough. There is no
neutral territory when you are
combating a chronic pandemic.
Either you are combating the
disease, or you are the disease.
It is time to diagnose which side
you are on.
Soneida Rodriguez can be reached
at soneida@umich.edu.
KAAVYA RAMACHANDHRAN | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KAAVYAR@UMICH.EDU
YASMEEN DOHAN | COLUMN
The vices and virtues of the Electoral College
P
ost-2016 election, discord
regarding the relevance
of the Electoral College
has become as audible as ever.
Politicians
and
constituents
alike
have
called
for
its
abolition, condemning it as
an
archaic
tradition
long
past its expiration date. As
a result, many have been
quick to propose a seemingly
more sensible popular vote.
Instilling
just
a
popular
vote, however, gives rise to a
multitude of new problems.
After
careful
thought,
it
becomes evident that replacing
the Electoral College with a
direct popular vote would not
suffice. We should instead
seek other means of reform.
To
understand
why
implementing a popular vote
would be problematic, it is
imperative to look back on
our nation’s founding. Our
country’s
forefathers
were
particularly wary of direct
democracy, despite its enticing
simplicity.
The
original
architects of the American
republic sought to forestall the
potential dangers it presented.
One potential danger was the
“tyranny of the majority” –
the concept that, in a pure
democracy, a majority can
overrule a minority in all
instances with no balance
of powers. A popular vote
was never considered in our
nation, as we were founded
with the intent of being a
representative republic, not a
direct democracy.
But before delving into the
problems
associated
with
abolishing
the
Electoral
College,
it
is
important
to mention that the cause
for
concern
is
far
from
unsubstantiated — the current
system has proven itself to be
far from perfect. Disapproval
of the Electoral College often
stems
from
its
favoritism
toward
battleground
swing
states,
with
one
reporter
even naming it a national
gerrymander: “Had two state
borders been drawn just a
little bit differently, shifting
a total of four counties from
one state to another, Hillary
Clinton would have won the
election.”
Additionally,
others
find
issue with the fact that there
have been five occurrences
in U.S. history in which the
winner of the presidential
election and the winner of
the
popular
vote
differed.
This
inconsistency
causes
worry that the desires of the
people are being tainted by the
flaws of our current electoral
process.
Yet possibly the biggest
concern
people
have
with
the Electoral College is its
distortion of the one-person,
one-vote democratic principle.
With
our
current
system,
a grand majority of states
are largely neglected during
campaign season. The few
battleground states in which
neither the Republican nor
Democratic parties maintain
a
stronghold
often
garner
more
campaign
attention
than the rest of the nation
combined. In fact, two-thirds
of campaign events during the
2016 presidential election only
took place in six states. To
the ill-informed citizen, this
statistic may be staggering and
legitimate enough to support
the
implementation
of
a
popular vote. However, things
aren’t quite this simple.
Our Constitution endows
the right to elect a president
to states through electors,
not individual citizens. This
practice is fundamental to
some of the main tenets our
nation
was
founded
upon:
checks and balances. Divisions
of
power
are
common
throughout our governmental
framework, and the existence
of the Electoral College only
further drives in this concept.
Meanwhile, a direct popular
vote itself is riddled with flaws,
despite its appearance as the
perfect
solution.
Minority
interests may be completely
disregarded in rural areas,
and the chance of a regionally-
popular
candidate
winning
the election would certainly
be possible. Additionally, any
close election with suspicion
of a miscount would prompt a
recount, a national nightmare.
Along with administrative
challenges, the chances of
realistically
transitioning
to a direct popular vote are
close to none. Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
said herself that, though she
would
support
eliminating
the
Electoral
College,
the
process
of
amending
the
Constitution
is
notoriously
difficult.
Furthermore,
convincing representatives of
less populous states to support
an
amendment
effectively
lessening their impact would
be especially challenging. As
a result, any discussion for a
popular vote appears moot.
Rather
than
scrap
the
Electoral College in pursuit
of a popular vote, we should
seek other ways to reform
it. Currently, 48 states and
Washington
D.C.
have
a
winner-takes-all process of
allocating electors. Nebraska
and
Maine,
however,
use
a
congressional
district
method, which can allow for
a split electoral vote. If more
state
legislatures
reformed
their
allocation
methods,
mismatches
between
the
results of the electoral and
popular vote would be less
drastic.
Mob
rule
has
revealed
itself catastrophic throughout
history,
and
the
Electoral
College was wisely created to
combat any destruction a fickle
crowd might bring. Though the
Electoral College is imperfect,
the proposition to implement
a popular vote is just as
problematic.
Rather
than
continue to cry for an abolition
rendered nearly impossible by
our Constitution, we should
seek meaningful reform to
our current methodology. If
achieved, our republic can
make a substantial step toward
a truer democracy.
Yasmeen Dohan can be reached at
yasmeend@umich.edu.
We were founded
with the intent of
being a representative
republic, not a direct
democracy
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
Oil moguls shouldn’t get off scot-free
B
efore I begin this piece,
let me just say: Climate
change is real and it is
caused by humans. I’m not here
to convince you otherwise if
you’re in denial. All I have to
say is that you’re better off
not defending people who are
complicit with your drowning
in 20 years. Oil CEOs need
to be held accountable for
the
damage
they’ve
done
to the environment. Time
and time again, we see the
responsibility
of
climate
change and the destruction of
the environment placed on the
individual, which is incredibly
disingenuous
considering
the statistics of the matter.
The Carbon Majors Report
compiled
by
the
Climate
Accountability
Institute,
a
non-profit organization that
monitors
climate
change
and the impact humans have
on the environment, states
that just 100 companies are
responsible
for
almost
71
percent of carbon emissions.
Just 100 companies. China
can also take the blame for the
abhorrent amounts of carbon
dioxide produced per year,
with Shenhua Group being
the top producer. But when
considering carbon emissions
per capita, the U.S. is still
the leader by a large margin.
Banning plastic straws in a
single city may help waste
for that region, but carbon
emissions are global.
Now, I’m not saying that
reducing your plastic waste
isn’t a noble goal. Please
continue to monitor your
own
contributions
to
the
global carbon footprint. What
I am saying, however, is that
it mostly isn’t your fault. The
blame should fall on people
like oil executive Bob Dudley,
who oversaw BP’s disaster
in the Gulf Coast in 2008.
It should fall upon people
like
oil-executiver-turned-
diplomat Rex Tillerson, who
gave millions of dollars to bad
faith actors in favor of climate
deregulation. It should be
put upon the moguls who
hold billions upon billions
of dollars milked from the
substances that are fueling the
most destructive phenomenon
in our planet’s history since
the Fifth Extinction.
On the topic of oil moguls,
the late David Koch can be a
good example of what these
people are usually up to.
Institutions
like
the
Cato
Institute, the Institute for
Energy
Research
and
the
Heritage
Foundation
have
all been funded by Koch and
his
affiliated
businesses.
The Cato Institute has been
noted
to
oppose
climate
change reform, with their
main page on the topic stating
that “there is ample time to
develop such technologies,”
to which I respond: There
is not ample time. I’m sure
you’ve heard the ultimatum
from
the
United
Nations
that we only have 12 years
to act. But it’s only in these
companies’
best
interests
to
spread
misinformation.
Companies like Exxon Mobil
also participate in donating
to bad faith actors, no doubt,
whether they be institutes or
political candidates.
The ultra-rich may claim
innocence
or
ignorance,
stating “it’s just business” to
keep the blood off their hands,
but just like it was for Pontius
Pilate, the evil deeds are their
responsibility. They’re having
planet Earth executed, and
washing its blood over the
masses that don’t have the
funds to ship themselves to
Mars. They knew for years
that
climate
change
was
happening, revealed in 330
pages
of
internal
memos
from companies like Exxon
Mobil and Koch Industries.
In 1968, a document given
by
the
Stanford
Research
Institute to the American
Petroleum Institute, a trade
organization which included
and
still
includes
Exxon
Mobil and Chevron, states
that, though they were unsure
of
the
true
ramifications,
“there seems to be no doubt
that the potential damage
could be severe,’’ referring to
the release of carbon dioxide
and other pollutants. I find
it completely ridiculous that
there is a deliberate avoidance
of responsibility and foresight
by policy makers. If it were
me personally, I would throw
them in prison and forcibly
seize
all
of
their
wealth
and put it into research and
development of clean energy.
But that’s a little too radical,
so let’s just stick with heavier
taxes.
Climate change has been
a focal point in the 2020
election,
with
multiple
candidates pontificating on
their own approach to solving
the
crisis.
We’ve
recently
had a global climate strike.
Awareness is increasing. You
may be asking yourself why
it would matter that these
individuals walk free, saying
things like, “Who cares?” and,
“We should be focusing on
the actual issue.” But without
accountability
for
actions,
these same kinds of industries
will get away with exploiting
the planet for profit and make
our efforts to solve climate
change futile. The mere fact
that these corporations would
have consequences for their
actions would send a message
to those who threaten the
environment. We care about
our planet, and those who
irrevocably send it to its death
will not be tolerated.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.