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.