Opinion
A
s many begin to head
home for the holidays, it
has become clear that this
year will look different. If you are
planning to safely reconnect with
family this holiday season, there
is bound to be tension regarding
any discussion from a year that is
seemingly a simulation gone rogue.
Despite the largely-acknowledged
principle of avoiding controversial
talk at the Thanksgiving table,
complicated
conversations
are
essential this year more than ever
before — especially when held with
those you don’t agree with.
My family and I are about as close
as a family can be (maybe even a
little closer than that). My parents
are my friends, my siblings are my
confidants and our family group
chat — appropriately named “My
Insane Family” — is inundated daily
with memes, pictures of my nieces
and occasionally something political
or controversial. While we all share
very similar moral values, it comes
as a surprise to many who know
how tight-knit my family is that our
politics are not all aligned. While I
won’t divulge personal information
about any of my family members,
I will instead use my personal
experience as an encouragement to
anyone heading home to a politically-
heterogeneous household.
Before
doing
so,
it
would
be ignorant of me to not give
recognition
to
the
divisive,
polarizing atmosphere in which
we live. Whether it be demanded
recounts, a lack of concession
from President Donald Trump or
the vastly different opinions my
Facebook feed has seen as a response
to these actions, it is imperative to
address the privilege that comes
with accepting a difference of
opinion.
There are differences of opinion
and then, in a very separate bucket,
there are values which cannot
be decided on personal opinion
and instead are matters of right
or wrong. For example, while tax
policy is a matter of debate, the
right for LGBTQ+ people to get
married is a matter of values —
equality, equity, discrimination and
opportunity
are
non-negotiable.
With
that
established,
rethink
your Thanksgiving table political
conversation.
Admittedly, the Thanksgiving
table is not the best place or time
for these conversations. However,
“nowhere” and “never” are also
not
sufficient
replacements.
Complicated conversations help us
grow; they allow us to develop our
own perspectives and attempt to
see a complex issue from different
angles. I recommend establishing
a time and place that feels
comfortable and open. Sometimes
the best conversations require
ground rules to ensure everyone
feels like they have a safe space to
communicate.
At the end of the day, without
a difference of opinion, the world
would be mundane and resemble a
page from a young adult dystopian
novel. As human beings, we pride
ourselves on our ability to produce
and share unique thoughts. If
we cannot find the power to
acknowledge the other side of an
argument, all hope in ending or
mending the divisiveness plaguing
every sector of life would truly be
gone.
There is a way to have these
conversations and there are endless
reasons to have them. So instead
of banning off-color conversation,
encourage open dialogues this
holiday season. Find a safe space
and be open-minded.
It can be extremely difficult
to look past my own ideology
sometimes. My brother and I
have been at a verbal duel to the
death over issues we will never
agree on. However, I know we
are both better for having those
challenging
conversations;
we
exposed ourselves to another
line of thinking and in doing so,
garnered a better understanding of
our own perspectives.
Normalize uncomfortable conversations this
holiday season
JESS D’AGOSTINO | COLUMN
I
t is past time for the United
States
to
implement
a
national carbon tax. Over 40
governments around the world have
put in place economic mechanisms
for
pricing
carbon,
whether
through a direct carbon tax or an
emissions trading system. The U.S.
is the second-largest contributor to
carbon emissions, yet it is behind in
the fight against climate change. A
few individual states have enacted
carbon taxes. But if the U.S. wants
to remain a world leader, it needs to
start taxing carbon at the national
level.
The purpose of a carbon tax is
to counteract a negative externality
that is not already considered by the
producer as a cost when considering
the costs and benefits of an activity.
While people do not intentionally
release carbon into the atmosphere,
it has negative side effects that
impact all of society, such as species
extinction,
falling
crop
yields,
intensified
weather
patterns,
damage to coral reefs, rising sea
levels and more.
Therefore, the government must
step in and increase the price of the
activity to make the cost accurately
reflect the negative societal impacts.
One of the largest sources of carbon
emissions is fossil fuel combustion
from burning coal, oil and natural
gas. Humans are releasing carbon
into the atmosphere faster than the
natural rate. While 40 percent of
the carbon dioxide we emit will be
removed from the atmosphere in
20 years, 20 percent will remain in
the atmosphere after 1,000 years.
Already, the parts per million
concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere has increased from
about 280 ppm in 1750 to over 400
ppm in 2019.
However, because the impacts of
carbon emissions are not immediate,
humans have yet to see how the
carbon already emitted will alter the
climate hundreds of years into the
future. According to a 2019 report
from the International Monetary
Fund, an increased price on carbon
may be the most efficient way to
reduce global warming and air
pollution.
The 2015 Paris climate accord
aims for a two-degree Celsius
warming. However, current trends
point to a four-degree Celsius rise
in temperature from pre-industrial
levels. In order to reach the two-
degree Celsius warming level, thus
keeping the climate livable for
humans, there must be a $75 per
ton price by 2030. Currently, the
global average price is $2 per ton
of carbon emissions, and the U.S.
has now withdrawn from the Paris
Agreement. As a global leader, the
U.S. must set an example for nations
across the world and take the
fight against climate change more
seriously with the implementation
of a carbon tax.
Opponents of a carbon tax argue
that U.S. exports would decrease
since a carbon tax would increase
the price of U.S. goods. However,
consumerism would likely just be
reallocated to carbon-free or low-
carbon goods and services that are
cheaper than the carbon-taxed
items. Further, some of the revenues
from the carbon tax that do not
get redistributed can be invested
in renewable energy sources and
innovation.
Another
possible
risk
of
a carbon tax is that it could
disproportionately
impact
low-
income
individuals
since
the
price of carbon-intense goods and
services would increase equally
across income groups. However,
a redistribution program would
solve this inequity by redistributing
tax revenue to American citizens.
Therefore, those with a smaller
carbon footprint who pay less
of the tax would make money
from the revenue and be further
incentivized to focus consumerism
on low-carbon goods and services.
If the U.S. wants to pride itself
on being a world leader, larger,
concrete steps towards fighting
climate change are necessary.
Taxing carbon is a feasible and
effective method for reducing
emissions. Congress must pass
a
carbon
tax
with
urgency,
decreasing the harmful carbon
emission activities in the U.S.
Jess D’Agostino can be reached at
jessdag@umich.edu.
LIZZY PEPPERCORN | COLUMN
It’s past time for a national carbon tax
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 — 8
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
KAREEM RIFAI | COLUMN
The future of Belarus is female
Lizzy Peppercorn can be reached at
epepperc@umich.edu.
Read more at
A
lexander
Lukashenko,
“Europe’s last dictator,”
has brutally suppressed
mass protests sparked by civil
unrest over Belarus’s presidential
election in August. Lukashenko,
who has ruled Belarus with an
iron fist since 1994, has managed
to maintain his grip on power
by rigging elections for more
than two decades. No Belarusian
presidential election since 1994
has been declared free or fair by
international election observers.
With state-sponsored media, the
Belarusian KGB and Vladimir
Putin at his side, the Belarusian
authoritarian has managed to
effectively fight back against
internal and external opposition
to his regime for years until now.
Svetlana
Tikhanovskaya,
a
former English teacher now-
turned
Lukashenko’s
largest
political
rival,
addressed
a
crowd of her supporters, saying
that she wants her “husband and
children back” and would much
rather “fry (her) cutlets” instead
of leading a major opposition
movement.
Tikhanovskaya’s
husband, Sergei, was the original
contender to oppose Lukashenko
in the August election. A popular
YouTube blogger and activist,
he was barred from registering
and as a candidate and was
thrown in prison. After her
husband’s arrest, Tikhanovskaya
joined forces with Veronika
Tsepkalo, the wife of another
barred presidential candidate,
Valery
Tsepkalo
and
Maria
Kolesnikova, former campaign
manager to barred candidate
Viktar
Babaryka.
Together,
this powerful female trio has
managed to ignite one of the most
expansive protest movements
against
Lukashenko’s
brutal
regime.
Lukashenko’s
misogyny
was on full display during his
campaign, saying that a female
president like Tikhanovskaya
“would collapse, poor thing.”
Beyond his routine targeting
of
female
pro-democracy
activists, the Belarusian KGB
went into overdrive to persecute
anyone perceived as a political
opponent leading up to the
election, including journalists,
monitors and foreign citizens.
Lukashenko’s
focus
on
eliminating his opposition has
gone far beyond his attention to
COVID-19, which he’s dismissed
as “psychosis.” In accordance
with
his
typical
machismo,
Lukashenko
suggested
that
drinking vodka, riding tractors
through fields and going to
the sauna would be enough to
counteract the deadly virus that
has claimed over a million lives
worldwide.
Despite
losing
the
rigged
election, and being forced to flee
the country, Tikhanovskaya’s
group of three has managed to
continue to fuel the mass protests
for
democracy
and
human
rights. Following the elections,
multiple state TV personalities,
bastions for the preservation
of Lukashenko’s rule, resigned
and joined the anti-government
protests. Students, doctors, the
elderly and prominent athletes
and actors have joined since the
popular movement’s start more
than 100 days ago.
Diana Pchelinkova, a young
female
activist
from
Minsk
described
the
brutality
she
endured during pro-democracy
protests to the BBC. As she fled
from the police, she and other
protesters ran into an apartment
building, seeking shelter in an
apartment: “I was the last one.
I fell at the entrance. They hit
my back with batons. We tried
to shut the door but they pushed
through.”
According to her account,
officers
stormed
in
the
apartment
Pchelinkova
had
taken shelter in and began
beating
the
male
protesters
while the women screamed and
begged for the police to spare
them from detention.
Another
female
activist,
Alesya, who frequently attends
anti-government
rallies,
recounted her experience at
a protest in early November.
As
crowds
increased,
stun
grenades were unleashed on the
peaceful protesters and police
hit people with batons. “They
attacked us again and again.
It was awful. They ferociously
beat people, twisted their arms
and
took
us
away,”
Alesya
said. Female leadership and
widespread female participation
in the protests aimed at ousting
Lukashenko
are
not
only
eroding the old-guard Soviet-
style
institutions
that
have
kept Lukashenko in power for
decades but also the image of
the traditionally ultra-macho
authoritarian leader.
Tikhanovskaya’s
rise
along
with Tsepkalo and Kolesnikova’s
feminist leadership has effectively
destroyed one of Europe’s last
strongmen,
as
Lukashenko
continues to frantically suppress
his opposition and likely fears
retribution
from
Vladimir
Putin in a similar style to
Russia’s illegal annexation of
Crimea in 2014. Three women
have brought one strong man
down to his knees, and if they
succeed,
Tikhanovskaya,
the
Belarussian “Joan of Arc,” will
radically change the landscape
of the Soviet-style nation, despite
having to tackle undoubtedly
difficult challenges for a former
teacher and housewife, including
rampant
corruption,
extreme
poverty and COVID-19.
Kareem Rifai can be reached at
krifai@umich.edu.
Design courtesy of Mellisa Lee
MADELYN VERVAECKE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT MIVERVAE@UMICH.EDU
SAM WOITESHEK | COLUMN
A remote freshman’s semester in review
I
may be a little late on the
Thanksgiving
vibes
but,
as a whole, the holiday
season offers time to “give
thanks” (something we should
do at least once every day). As
the semester winds to a close
and Michiganders prepare for
another winter featuring hell’s
elemental wrath, I would be
remiss if I did not stop to think
about these last three months.
Back in the summer, my
excitement was overwhelming.
My senior year of high school had
ended abruptly and I was ready
for a fresh start. I agonized over
my classes in July and signed
up for move-in in August, both
with an enthusiasm unknown
to mankind. I figured it was
only a matter of time before my
“college experience” began.
As it turns out, expectations
rarely meet reality. I elected
to study remotely as all my
classes were online. I refused
to cancel my housing contract
with the hope of returning
once the number of COVID-
19 cases lowered, a moment
that never came. My parents
are
immunocompromised,
so
my options are limited in my
hometown as well. It’s been
nearly impossible to salvage the
positives.
However, I’m not looking for
pity. Coupled with the University
of Michigan’s recent housing
decision, it’s been a tumultuous
experience for many first-year
students, even those that are
on-campus.
Without
further
ado, here are the highs and lows
from 164 miles away.
The good: The option for
students to attend hybrid classes
was inspiring. Although 77% of all
credit hours were taken remotely,
some students were allowed to
enjoy face-to-face socialization, a
scarcity nowadays but refreshing
when available. Here’s to hoping
— out of all our pandemic-related
collegiate issues — for more
opportunities
for
in-person
education and interaction in 2021.
Our clubs and organizations
have been extremely diligent.
The rush processes for most
Fraternity & Sorority life and
professional
fraternities
have
so far been virtual and well-
executed. I am a member of the
Sports
Business
Association
and we have a speaker series
every week over Zoom, as well
as
professional
development
workshops.
From
what
I’ve
heard from other students, their
extracurricular activities have
been conducted in a similar
fashion. Keep up the awesome
work, guys.
The bad: The awkwardness in
Zoom’s “breakout room” feature
is almost palpable. Unless you
have a Chatty Kathy in your
group, chances are the first
minutes will be spent blankly
staring at each other in silence.
Then, when you finally are able
to converse, the professor is
already calling you back and you
have to strategically say goodbye.
Alternatively, there’s a chance
your group hits it off! Sadly,
you’re probably not talking about
what you were assigned, so that’s
no good either.
Why the heck were community
bathrooms
an
option
this
semester? No less one that came
to fruition! No one is going to
reasonably wear a mask while
showering or brushing their
teeth and, if Michigan Housing
thought otherwise, they were
so
devastatingly
wrong.
I’m
not suggesting that we go full-
out barbaric and conduct our
business among nature, but can’t
we push a little more for a safer
substitute during this time?
Football season, on the whole,
has been operating below its
usual standards. The Holy Grail
of fall Saturdays currently does
not exist. Where else would
you rather be on an Ann Arbor
weekend than among 110,000
screaming fans? I get it, this
pandemic has stripped us of far
too much, but it still hurts to
watch the empty, cardboard-
filled
stands
at
Michigan
Stadium. Plus, if that wasn’t bad
enough, our annoying neighbors
to the south were victorious and
Jim Harbaugh appears lost yet
again. His team is a measly 2-4,
underperforming by the most
mediocre of expectations. He
might want to start looking for a
realtor soon.
A week ago I returned to Ann
Arbor to move the few belongings
I had in Mary Markley Residence
Hall back to my house. It was
strange coming back. I’ve been
to campus plenty of times for a
variety of reasons. Yet somehow,
on what should have been a typical
fall afternoon, the place I’d come
to love had never felt more foreign.
Then again, this semester — as
we’ve all learned — has become
entirely
atypical.
On-campus
freshmen may have had some fun,
but they’d be cheating themselves
by believing they received the
full experience. The University
is too diverse and enriching in
its possibilities for this year’s
freshmen to be satisfied in the
short and limited time they’ve
spent here.
For first-years who have spent
the year at home, it’s okay to admit
our “experience” was unflattering.
Make no mistake, it’s felt like high
school 2.0. We’ll enter next fall
feeling like freshmen, feeling a
year behind our classmates and
a lifetime behind our older peers.
Sam Woiteshek can be reached at
swoitesh@umich.edu.