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.

