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.