Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 25, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
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
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Social media makes cancel culture unique
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
JOEL WEINER | COLUMN
Why we should turn to carbon capture
It is time to kill the death penalty
W
ith each passing
day, I, and many
other
students
at the University
of Michigan, give
more
and
more
hours of thought
to
how
we
can
use
our
degrees
after college. This
decision takes time
to plan out, rethink
and develop into a
carefully
planned
trajectory
for
what we expect our societal
purpose to be. After months
of thinking every day about
where I want to go in life,
I
decided
on
a
specific
engineering pathway I could
pursue: carbon capture.
A relatively novel topic of
research, carbon capture is
the process of recollecting
carbon
dioxide
emitted
into the atmosphere and
reinserting
the
material
back
into
underground
storage. By converting the
carbon dioxide gas into its
liquid form for easy storage,
the carbon capture process
creates an immediate effect
of greenhouse gas reduction
in the atmosphere. Based
on the extent of greenhouse
gases that can be taken
away from the atmosphere
using this method and other
similar ones, I believe the
process of carbon capture
will be the defining method
to fight climate change in
several major ways.
For
instance,
Chevron
demonstrated
one
major
benefit of carbon capture
by developing greenhouse
gas mitigation technologies.
This company has been one
of the pioneers of developing
this
process
despite
challenges in the research
process
and
in
making
this process economically
feasible. In this way, Chevron
is guiding the models for
carbon capture and storage
implementation throughout
global
institutions
and
frameworks geared toward
reaching the goals of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Special Report on
Carbon Capture and Storage.
Consequently, the company
is doing its part to promote
the systematic and effective
development of the use of
carbon capture and storage
technologies.
In
another
example,
Petra
Nova,
an
energy
provider based in Texas,
has
demonstrated
the
successful
repurposing
of
carbon into fuel.
This company has
carried out both
large
quantities
of
carbon
capture
as
well
as
a
significant
increase
in
oil
production,
signifying
a
revolutionary
method
of
repurposing a nonrenewable
resource. In addition, the
company
has
set
itself
apart
by
implementing
a process that uses and
reuses
natural
resources.
In this way, Petra Nova is
showing the practicality of
carbon capture and storage.
Consequently, the company
is allowing other institutions
to realize the feasibility of
implementing
the
carbon
capture process.
A final example can be
seen with Shell’s mentality
when
it
comes
to
the
widespread implementation
of the carbon capture and
storage
process.
Sally
Benson, a director of Shell’s
Global Climate and Energy
Project, commented on the
idea that the research energy
companies do to develop
the carbon capture process
doesn’t carry any meaning if
it’s not used or implemented
by policy.
“As academics, we can do
all the laboratory research
to show the technology’s
power. But until we have
the industry implementing
projects and sharing their
insights, we’re not going
to
make
the
significant
progress required to meet
our climate goal,” she said.
In this way, this company
is working toward making
policymakers aware of the
importance they hold in the
future of our contribution to
climate change solutions.
In different circumstances,
these
three
companies
exemplify only a few of the
many ways that the process
of carbon capture can create
a crucial, beneficial impact
on our society today. By
leading
the
initiative
to
promote the use of these
technologies,
providing
information that proves this
process’s functionality and
emphasizing the significance
of systematic implementation
of
the
research
behind
these
technologies,
these
companies
are
propelling
society’s
perspective
on
the carbon capture process.
In
doing
so,
they
have
demonstrated the influence
that carbon capture can have
not only on the quality of
our environment, but also on
how our society approaches
the climate issue.
Considering
the
proven
benefits of carbon capture,
I believe the adoption of the
initiative models are enough
to effect the drastic change
necessary for environmental
improvement.
Therefore,
these
adoptions
should
occur
at
institutions
throughout the world. Here
at the University, College
of
Engineering
faculty
and staff are leading the
Blue Sky Initiative aimed
at reducing and removing
the
emission
of
carbon
dioxide into our atmosphere
as
well
as
repurposing
collected carbon gas into
other
infrastructural
materials.
Volker
Sick,
DTE
Energy
Professor
of
Advanced
Energy
Research,
commented
on
the
opportunity
that
we
have as a society to utilize
the carbon capture process:
“We
believe
innovations
in carbon dioxide removal
and utilization technologies
can
generate
a
carbon-
negative,
dollar-positive
effect
that
will
reduce
emission
footprints
while
generating billions of dollars
of
economic
activity
in
the decades ahead.” As a
result, we should continue
to push for this type of
interdisciplinary,
multi-
beneficial
work
for
its
monumental influence on the
quality of our environment.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
R
odney
Reed
was
scheduled to be dead
by
Thanksgiving.
After
sitting
on
death row in Texas
for over 20 years,
his death sentence
was
suspended
indefinitely. Reed
was
arrested
in 1996 for the
murder of Stacey
Stites, a 19-year-
old
woman.
The
key
piece
of evidence tying him to
the crime was the semen,
appearing to match Reed’s,
found in Stites’s body. He
maintains that the two of them
were in a consensual sexual
relationship, but at the time of
his conviction, no witnesses
came forward to corroborate
the
statement.
However,
Reed’s lawyers say someone
has recently backed up Reed’s
claim of a consensual sexual
relationship with the victim
— a claim that should lead
to a new trial. Moreover, his
lawyers say that Stites’s fiancé
at the time, Jimmy Fennell, a
former police officer, admitted
to the crime while imprisoned
for kidnapping and rape of
a different woman in 2008.
In
addition,
the
District
Attorney’s office has refused
to test the murder weapon,
a belt, for DNA. Examples
of convictions where there
still exists some doubt as
to
whether
the
defendant
is
guilty,
such
as
Reed’s
case, demonstrate that the
death penalty is an immoral,
expensive and biased form of
punishment.
Cases like these rise to
prominence every few years:
Someone who has been sitting
on death row for an extended
period of time tries as hard
as possible to be heard when
they say they are innocent.
The media tends to report it
as the date of execution draws
closer, petitions for a new
trial circulate the internet and
the accused sits in his cell (it
is almost always a
man, as only 54 of the
almost 2,700 people
on death row are
women),
wondering
if he will be granted
a
new
trial.
The
complications
surrounding
the
death penalty make it
so problematic that it
should be abolished.
Even if someone supports
the death penalty on moral
grounds, they may support
its
abolition
because
of
how
expensive
it
is.
In
Pennsylvania alone, estimates
put the cost of the death
penalty at more than $350
million.
Judges tend to be more
sympathetic
in
hearing
appeals of death penalty cases
than in most other cases. The
majority of cases in which the
prosecution seeks the death
penalty do not end in capital
punishment. The ones that do
go through a lengthy appeals
process, during which many
of the sentences are reduced
to life without parole. This
means that most of the death
penalty cases will end with
the same ruling as life without
the possibility of parole, but
the process will be far more
expensive due to an appeals
process and draw resources
away from areas where they
could have more of an impact.
These
extended
processes,
however, are necessary for
the death penalty to continue
because of how serious such
cases tend to be. One of the
greatest risks in any trial is
the possibility the accused is
actually innocent, but those
stakes become exponentially
higher
in
death
penalty
proceedings.
Capital punishment is also
biased in its sentencing because
it is disproportionately used
against
African-American
defendants. More than half of
the current death row inmates
are people of color. In the
early 20th century, when it
was most used against people
accused of rape, 89 percent
of the defendants were Black.
Moreover, in the 38 states that
still use the death penalty,
98 percent of the prosecutors
are white. That means white
people are deciding that Black
lives should end at a higher
rate than white lives. Capital
punishment,
therefore,
worsens the inequality of
an
already
discriminatory
system. Such disparities are
unacceptable in a country
that bases its criminal justice
system on the idea of equality
under the law. The death
penalty is also unequal gender-
wise. The vast majority of
people on death row are men,
and defendants are almost
seven times more likely to be
handed a death sentence if the
victim is a woman.
That brings us back to
Rodney Reed. He has fought
tirelessly to get a new trial, and
was lucky enough to receive
it. Regardless, the high costs
and problematic enforcement
of the death penalty means it
should be abolished.
“
Cancel culture” is back
in the news thanks to
President Barack Obama’s
recent
comments
on the standards of
“wokeness”
among
young
people
and
in social media. As
people argue cancel
culture’s merits and
causes, they invariably
point to generational
or political factors,
such as the unique
sensitivity
of
young people or a
particularly
offensive
political atmosphere. However,
these explanations miss the
mark. To fully explain the
phenomenon of cancel culture
we have to look at the structure
of social media.
Young people calling out
harmful
speech,
demanding
resignations
and
organizing
boycotts is not new. What has
changed is the means by which
they do these things. Before
the growth of social media,
people were limited to paper
petitions,
in-person
protests
and
newspaper
op-eds
for
spreading their message and
taking action. Now, anybody
can log on to Twitter and send
out a tweet, and if things go
right, it will go viral, potentially
reaching millions of people.
This is incredibly powerful. It is
what has driven movements like
the Arab Spring and #MeToo.
It has contributed to genocide
in Myanmar and mob violence
in
India.
Analyzing
cancel
culture
requires
examining
the powerful mechanisms that
drive social media.
Often, it seems as if cancel
culture takes place in another
universe. Typically, I don’t know
the cancelers or the canceled
personally, but I see their content
online and feel the effects of
their interactions offline. How
does a small group of people
on the internet dominate the
national
conversation
and
have real effects on people’s
lives? Through platforms that
encourage virality, engagement
and extremity.
Social
media
companies’
primary source of revenue is
advertisements.
More
user
engagement allows more ads
to be sold. Because of this,
companies focus on driving
user
engagement,
searching for ways
to
grab
users’
attention and hold
it for as long as
possible. And what
content drives the
most
engagement?
Studies
find
that
negative,
divisive
emotions
such
as
fear and anger do.
So, thanks to the
structure
of
social
media, posts that provoke these
emotions – content related to
cancel culture certainly fits
this category – rise naturally.
Additionally, the emphasis on
virality leads to features that
quickly amplify and distribute
content. Twitter trends, the
Facebook
news
feed,
the
YouTube recommender system
and the Instagram discover
page simultaneously push viral
content to keep you engaged
and use you to make content
more viral, a positive feedback
loop
that
circulates
posts
quickly and widely. This is how
a disproportionate amount of
content related to cancel culture
ends up in our feeds, on our
minds and in our conversations.
Without social media, cancel
culture would manifest itself as
relatively normal generational
activism. There would be good
and bad, overzealousness and
moral clarity. All still exist today,
but now they exist alongside the
democratization of information,
the magnification of shame,
the anonymity of social media
and the growth of permanent,
searchable
digital
records
of our lives. This emboldens
some people and makes others
feel
vulnerable,
leading
to
aggression, defensiveness and
self-censorship,
fueling
the
influence of cancel culture as
a concept and as an agent of
change.
But what about the good,
the speaking of truth to power,
the legitimate criticism that
is often labeled derogatively
as cancel culture by those
threatened by it? Doesn’t social
media
empower
movements
like #MeToo? Doesn’t it give
a voice and a platform to the
marginalized? Yes. This is the
paradox of social media — its
vast capacity for both good and
bad. Implementing technology
that deemphasizes virality or
engagement could undermine
important
social
movements
and mute constructive criticism.
Yet, maintaining the status
quo is clearly not desirable
either. Does the answer lie
beyond technology? Education,
morality and art — do these
institutions have the answer?
It seems to me that these
non-technical
institutions
do indeed hold the answer,
if there is one. Social media
companies have no incentive to
change the mechanisms driving
their platforms — virality and
engagement are key to their
bottom line. Additionally, it’s
not clear we should want them
to. Many of the same features
that drive the negative parts of
cancel culture give a platform
to marginalized people, and
are
an
important
tool
for
social
movements.
This
is
where
non-technical
factors
come in. Education, morality
and art all have the ability to
change people’s minds. For
example,
Mary
Gaitskill’s
novella
“This
is
pleasure”
explores
cancel
culture
and #MeToo from multiple
perspectives,
producing
a
complicated,
nuanced
piece
that is thought-provoking and
demands
moderation
from
readers.
Theoretically,
art
like “This is pleasure” could
inspire meaningful, widespread
changes, making people less
likely to use social media for
gratuitous
denunciation
and
encouraging
less
charged,
more offline engagement. I’m
not
particularly
optimistic
about such a transformation,
though. It would require a
collective awakening that seems
impossible in today’s highly
polarized environment where
more pressing issues such as
climate change fail to garner a
similar response. I guess we can
hope though.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
The process of
carbon capture
will be the
defining method
to fight climate
change
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
Joel Weiner can be reached
jgweiner@umich.edu.
White people
are deciding that
Black lives should
end at a higer rate
than white lives
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.
KIANNA
MARQUEZ
CHAND
RAJENDRA-
NICOLUCCI
JOEL
WEINER