2-News
W
ith polls having closed
and the result in — albeit,
after a painfully long
wait — it appears as though former
Vice President Joe Biden has won the
presidency while Democrats have
kept the House of Representatives but
fell short of taking back the Senate for
now. Controlling the White House
and the lower chamber of Congress
while not having the Senate will
complicate matters when it comes
to climate change, which Biden
called the “number one issue facing
humanity.”
Add in a 6-3 conservative
majority in the Supreme Court
following
the
confirmation
of Amy Coney Barrett, and
potential-President Biden will
be facing a tough road ahead to
pass any meaningful legislation
to
fight
climate
change
or
protect
the
environment.
Without the support of either
the Senate or the Supreme Court,
Democrats will need to rely on
the Environmental Protection
Agency
for
environmental
regulations and protections.
On its own, the EPA cannot
pass any legislation that would
allocate money and resources
toward
an
environmental
project. However, it does have
the power to pass regulations
as well as enforce existing laws
with fines and sanctions. The
EPA can also take companies to
court if they fail to comply with
the protections. Since the EPA is
defined as a “regulatory agency,”
it is granted power under the
Code of Federal Regulations to
establish rules that people and
corporations are required by law
to follow.
President Donald Trump and
his appointed EPA administrator
Andrew
Wheeler
have
completely gutted environmental
protections. They have rolled
back 72 different regulations and
are in the process of removing 27
more, bringing the total number
of regulations overturned to
99. Against the advice of many
scientists, Trump’s EPA rejected
a strict standard for improving
air quality. Back in 2019, Trump
weakened
the
Endangered
Species Act, making it easier
to take a species off the list
and
decreasing
protections
for animals on it. About one
year later, Wheeler revised the
Clean Water Act, making it
easier for coal plants to pollute
neighboring rivers. Trump and
Wheeler also threw away limits
on methane restrictions at oil
and gas sites. Trump has used his
four years in office to devastate
the environment — among many
other things — putting pressure
on the next administration to
clean up the mess.
When Biden is sworn into
the presidency in January of
next year, it will be extremely
telling who he brings into his
administration with him. Under
Obama, the EPA administrators
were Lisa Jackson, a chemical
engineer, and Gina McCarthy,
an environmental health and
air quality expert. If a Biden
administration looks anything
like
Obama’s
administration,
then Biden, at the very least,
will not nominate a former coal
lobbyist like Trump has.
Who
Biden
decides
to
nominate for EPA administrator
will tell us a lot about how he
will govern his four years as
president. A name that has been
floated numerous times for the
position is Sen. Tom Carper,
D-Del., who has been friends with
Biden for almost 50 years. Carper
serves as the top Democrat on
the Environment and Public
Works Committee and has joined
Biden in calling the climate
crisis the “the greatest crisis we
face right now on our planet.”
Carper also boasts a 100% voting
record according to the League
of Conservation Voters. Another
name being floated is U.S. Rep.
Donald McEachin, D-Va., whom
Biden trusted to put on the
Biden-Sanders unity task force
for climate change. McEachin
serves on the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Natural Resources
and the Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis.
Other names that have been
floated include Washington Gov. Jay
Inslee, former Democratic Nominee
and Secretary of State John Kerry,
U.S.
Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-
Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., and Ed Markey,
D-Mass. Biden’s pick will tell us a
lot about how he will deal with the
environment and climate change.
He can pick a more moderate choice
like Carper, McEachin or Kerry and
the next four years will be filled
with small, incremental changes.
He could opt for a progressive
option like Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders
or Markey and the EPA can lead
with bold, aggressive sweeping
changes that will clean up our
environment and greatly improve
public health. While Sanders has
called Biden “the most progressive
Democratic nominee since Franklin
Delano Roosevelt,” his EPA choice
will tell us a great deal about the
truth to that bold statement.
While the EPA will be a
necessary and vital tool for
environmental policy during the
next four years, it will also tell us
how far left Biden is willing to go.
During the debate, when Trump
stated that Biden will “listen to
the scientists” as an attempted
insult, Biden needed only one
word to respond, “yes.” Biden has
repeatedly said he will “follow
the science” despite refusing to
commit to banning fracking, which
a majority of scientists believe is
destroying the environment and
public health. Biden must make a
progressive EPA pick in order to
truly “listen to the scientists.”
A
t 2:47 a.m. on Nov. 9,
2016, Wolf Blitzer said
12 words that mortified
half the republic: “Right now,
a
historic
moment.
CNN
projects Donald Trump wins
the presidency.” As a member
of the mortified population,
by 2:48 a.m., I was already
looking
ahead
to
2020.
Anticipating
—
correctly,
as time has shown — the
damaging scourge a Trump
presidency would represent,
I, like many of my appalled
Democratic brethren, circled
a date on the calendar buried
deep in an alien future: Nov.
3, 2020.
The
bitter
shock
to
Democrats wasn’t just that
Trump won; it was that he
won, and we didn’t see it
coming.
We
got
T-boned
by
a
MAGA
truck.
Most
Democrats, and perhaps even
a good deal of Republicans,
expected Hillary Clinton to
win the election; as terrifying
as the specter of a Trump
victory
was,
we
knew
it
would never come to fruition.
Hillary, flawed as she might
have been, was going to win,
and the dumpster fire that
was
the
Trump
campaign
would be rightly relegated to
the landfill of history. 2016
was already licked, sealed and
stamped.
It was a numbers game,
a
question
of
statistics,
and it lulled us into a naive
complacency. By most polling
metrics, Hillary should have
cruised to victory on Nov. 8,
2016.
FiveThirtyEight,
one
of the most reliable election
forecasters, gave Hillary a
70.9% chance of winning on
the eve of the election — not
a shoo-in, but comfortable
odds if you were on the
blue team. Predicting more
than 300 electoral votes for
the
Democratic
nominee,
FiveThirtyEight
believed
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Pennsylvania,
Iowa,
Ohio,
North Carolina and Florida
would
cast
blue
electoral
votes. All of these states went
red, and in doing so delivered
Trump a healthy electoral
college victory.
Is the 2016 phenomenon
playing
out
again?
As
of
Wednesday,
Oct.
28,
FiveThirtyEight
gives
Joe
Biden
an
88%
chance
of
bringing home the bacon. The
bitter memory of 2016 should
remind Democrats, though,
that victory is not assured.
Wisconsin,
Michigan
and
Pennsylvania do lean blue
according to the polls and if
that holds, Biden should win.
But Wisconsin, Michigan and
Pennsylvania
leaned
blue
according to the polls in 2016,
and if that held, Hillary would
have won. Look how that
turned out.
We have to be wary of
putting too much faith in
these metrics, and we can’t be
surprised if a similar scenario
unravels
again.
If
Trump
holds the swing states in the
South
—
Florida,
Georgia
and North Carolina — as well
as Ohio, all of a sudden he’s
well within striking distance.
There are a million ways the
electoral map could play out,
but the upshot is that this
thing could be a lot closer
than many seem to believe.
While Biden should win, we
shouldn’t be shell-shocked if
Trump does.
So, what happens if 2016
happens again? Even if Trump
finesses another upset victory,
Biden will almost certainly
have
still
captured
the
popular vote, and likely to the
tune of several million. If this
is the case, the Democratic
Party ought to prioritize the
abolition
of
the
Electoral
College — a move that more
than
half
of
Americans
favor — to be replaced with
the
popular
vote.
And
it
would be entirely justified.
Since 2000, the Republican
nominee will have won the
popular vote, indicative of
the real will of the voting
public, only one time in the
past six presidential contests.
Despite this, the Republican
candidate will have won three
out of the past six elections.
Does that sound like healthy
democracy to you?
But
for
the
Democratic
Party, there are also bigger,
harder questions they will
have to face in the event of
a loss. Questions of identity
— the soul of the party. In
the
past
two
presidential
elections,
Democratic
primary voters would have
tapped the “safe,” moderate
establishment
candidate
—
Clinton and Biden — and lost.
It’s more than just identifying
that the “safe” candidate isn’t
the surest route to victory:
it’s identifying that Trumpian
populism invigorates people,
and hardly anyone actually
gets excited about voting for
Biden. For many voters, Biden
is simply the lesser of two
evils; they are against Trump,
and they are consequently for
Biden.
A party defining itself by
what it is against more than
what it is for is sure to excite
no one. I recognize that these
are exceptional times, and
that the 2020 presidential
election was always bound
to
be
a
referendum
on
Trump. But if the Democrats
lose again, they’ll need a
facelift. There’s clearly an
appetite for populism in the
republic, and they need to
be better salespeople. Only
by incorporating some of the
party’s
left-wing
elements
—
the
Bernie
Sanders/
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez
faction — can the Democrats
gain
a
clearer
sense
of
identity.
Republicans will scream,
as some already are, that
the Democrats have become
socialists,
and
they
will
appeal to Americans’ primal
fear of socialism à la Eugene
McCarthy. Let them say what
they will. To associate the left
wing of the Democratic Party
with the hammer and sickle is
an anti-intellectual cop-out, a
way to protect conservatives
from having to actually debate
their ideas.
But this is really a different
discussion for a different day.
And perhaps, in the event
of a victory, the Democrats
will not have to consider
a reconfiguration of their
party’s identity. But if Biden
loses fair and square on Nov.
3, one thing becomes clear:
if the moderate wing of the
party can’t beat someone as
incompetent and insane as
Trump, it’s become no country
for the old Dems.
I
know something Michigan
State University has that
we don’t.
It’s something that, despite
the
interconnectedness
of
our campus with downtown
Ann Arbor, the city has not
managed to acquire.
It’s something that would
be a major convenience to
students and other residents of
the downtown area, something
that would increase downtown
foot
traffic
and
stimulate
downtown businesses.
It is: a grocery store.
In July 2019, supermarket
chain
Target
opened
a
“small-format”
store
in
downtown East Lansing. The
store is essentially a scaled-
down version of a typical
Target
supermarket,
with
the
exception
of
reduced
children’s clothing and toy
sections. Otherwise, all of the
clothing and home goods that
can be found at the average
supermarket can be found
there, with a quarter of the
store devoted to food and
groceries.
The (relatively) new store’s
best feature? It’s located on
Grand River Avenue, which is
in the heart of East Lansing’s
downtown area and is right
across the street from MSU’s
campus.
After two years of living
here, I’m surprised that Ann
Arbor doesn’t have its own
downtown
supermarket.
There’s
the
Ann
Arbor
Farmers Market in Kerrytown,
which sells plenty of local
produce but is, of course, only
a seasonal offering. There’s
a Walgreens on the corner
of State Street and North
University Avenue, but unless
you are committed to fulfilling
the college student stereotype
of surviving solely on instant
ramen, you can’t live off of
what is sold there. Instead,
anybody living near downtown
Ann Arbor who wants to
do any sort of substantial,
reliable grocery shopping is
consigned to making a trip to
Meijer, Target, Trader Joe’s
or another grocery store well
away from the city center. For
many students, the distance
to even the closest of these
destinations is impractical to
travel without the help of a bus
or car.
This configuration is by no
means unusual in American
cities, but that doesn’t mean
that relocating supermarkets
and
grocery
stores
won’t
benefit
communities,
especially
a
college
town
like Ann Arbor, where high
concentrations of students —
many of whom don’t own cars
— live close to downtown.
The most obvious benefit
of downtown supermarkets
is
convenience.
Given
a
downtown shopping location,
students would easily be able
to incorporate shopping into
trips to and from class or
work. The epic journey down
Ann Arbor-Saline Road to
Meijer, on the other hand,
takes
around
10
minutes
by car, and isn’t on the way
to anything but a couple of
nearby fast food places. If
a small-format Meijer was
located on State Street, for
example, students could pick
up the week’s produce on the
way home from class at Mason
Hall, with only a block’s worth
of extra walking, rather than
having to carve out an hour or
two of their time a week for
a trip to Meijer’s current and
closest location.
Other downtown businesses
would benefit from a nearby
grocery store as well. As well-
loved as local independent
businesses like Dawn Treader
Book Shop and Underground
Sounds are, most people would
consider their need for food to
be greater than their need for
fine literature; a supermarket
would bring to the downtown
area
people
who
might
not
otherwise
patronize
downtown small businesses,
helping to keep the local
institutions
that
give
Ann
Arbor its unique character in
robust health.
It’s clear that the addition
of
a
supermarket
to
the
downtown area would benefit
both students and Ann Arbor
residents
and
businesses.
But why would supermarket
companies be interested in
making such an expansion? As
it turns out, downtown areas
provide them with a unique
opportunity for growing their
businesses. According to an
article from the Michigan
Retailers Association, urban
regions could serve as vital
areas of expansion for chains
like Meijer. As Cindy Ciura,
principal of Bloomfield Hills-
based
consulting
firm
CC
Consulting, said, “If I’m a
Meijer, how am I going to grow
my business? I’m everywhere I
want to be in suburbia.”
Opening stores downtown
would also help businesses
adapt to trends of increasing
urbanization.
According
to data from the Southeast
Michigan
Council
of
Governments, Ann Arbor and
Detroit led the region in new
residential permits in 2016.
The vast majority of the new
permits were for apartments
(95% in Detroit and 85% in
Ann
Arbor)
signalling
an
increase
in
high-density
residential
areas.
These
increasing urban populations
will need expanded retail and
grocery offerings to meet their
needs, and supermarkets can
increase revenue by opening
more downtown locations to
fill this growing demand.
The
Michigan
Retailers’
Association article does concede
that the costs of building, owning
and operating businesses in
downtown areas are higher
than in suburban areas, and
that some supermarket chains,
like Walmart, have failed to
construct a successful business
model around small-scale stores.
The fact that there are plenty of
businesses that are still willing
to try, however, shows that the
potential benefits are well
worth those costs. Target’s move
into East Lansing, for example,
was part of a larger effort to
expand its number of small-
format stores from 65 to 130
between 2018 and 2019.
Today,
Target
only
has
100 small-format stores, but
those that have opened have
continued to be financially
successful,
and
plans
are
underway to construct more.
The City of Ann Arbor should
take advantage of Target and
other companies’ willingness
to invest in a new format of
grocery store, and provide our
community with an alternative
to
suburban
supermarkets.
One that will bring more
people downtown and increase
the vibrancy of our urban
community.
Wednesday, November 11, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
What is the future of the EPA with a Republican Senate?
ALEXANDER NOBEL | COLUMNIST
No country for old Dems
MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMNIST
Max Steinbaum can be reached at
maxst@umich.edu.
Evan Dempsey can be reached at
evangd@umich.edu.
Target acquired
EVAN DEMPSEY | COLUMNIST
Design courtesy of Cara Jheng/Daily
Alexander Nobel can be reached at
anobel@umich.edu.