 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
 Wednesday, April 20, 2022 — 9

PAIGE HODDER
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.

JASMIN LEE
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD 
AND SHUBHUM GIROTI
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

Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace

Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Sophia Lehrbaum

Joel Weiner
Erin White
Devon Hesano
Rushabh Shah
Alex Yee 
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky

O

n March 8, 2022, Florida 
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed 
a House Bill 1557, known 
as both the “Parental Rights in 
Education” and the “Don’t Say Gay” 
bill. In February, President Joe 
Biden called the bill “hateful.”
The “Don’t Say Gay” title comes 
from some of the bill’s key passages, 
prohibiting “classroom instruction 
on sexual orientation or gender 
identity in kindergarten through 
grade 3 or in a manner that is not 
age-appropriate or developmentally 
appropriate for students.” The bill 
itself is further reaching than just 
LGBTQ+ issues, impacting the 
health needs of students. Parents 
are able to opt their children out 
of counseling and health services, 
and if students receive any type of 
health service from school, parents 
will be notified. Between the “Don’t 
Say Gay” and the health services 
portion of the bill, the access 
students will have to help outside 
of their parents is worrying, to say 
the least. 
Deciding to exclude words like 
“gay” or “homosexuality” from a 
classroom will not stop a person 
from being Queer; it only makes 
them think that they are alone. 
According to the Trevor Project, 
a nonprofit dedicated to suicide 
prevention among LGBTQ+ kids, 
“LGBTQ youth who learned about 
LGBTQ issues or people in classes 
at school had 23% lower odds of 
reporting a suicide attempt in the 
past 12 months.”
While it is not the first bill of its 
kind to be written, it is unlikely 
to be the last. House Bill 800 in 
Tennessee 
asserts, 
“textbooks 
and 
instructional 
materials 
and 
supplemental 
instructional 
materials that promote, normalize, 
support, or address controversial 
social issues, such as lesbian, gay, 
bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) 
lifestyles are inappropriate” and 
“the promotion of LGBT issues and 
lifestyles in public schools offends 
a significant portion of students, 
parents, and Tennessee residents 
with Christian values.” Tennessee’s 
bill is not vaguely limited to 
kindergarten through third grade 

like Florida’s; it covers all public 
K-12 classrooms. 
Opponents of Tennesse’s bill 
question the implication of words 
like “normalize” and “address” — 
what about the Queer educators? 
Will pictures of spouses be removed 
from 
their 
classroom 
desks? 
What about the students with 
Queer parents? Are both parents 
allowed to enter the classroom for 
parent-teacher conferences? (The 
question of books and educational 
material will continue to be argued, 
particularly with the banning of 
specific books related to LGBTQ+ 
issues and racial inequality in the 
United States).
Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill 
affecting not only what is said in the 
classroom but outside is chilling. 
Students like Will Larkins, a junior 
in high school from Winter Park, 
Florida, 
are 
worried. 
Larkins 
published an opinion essay in The 
New York Times on March 12, 
explaining the positive influence 
that an understanding teacher had, 
writing, “Education made me hate 
myself less.”
Larkins and their friend Maddi 
Zornek led a walkout of more than 
500 students on the day of the 
signing. Other protests have taken 
place since, notably those including 
Disney employees. The fight for 
LGBTQ+ rights does not seem to be 
over, especially as other states follow 
in Florida’s footsteps. Earlier this 
month, Alabama passed legislation 
banning gender-affirming medical 
care for transgender minors and 
threatening those who attempt 
to provide such cares with prison 
time. They also passed a similar, 
though more severe, K-12 “Don’t 
Say Gay” bill, which would force 
students to use the bathroom and 
locker room of their sex assigned 
at birth. Alabama’s legislation 
would ban classroom instruction 
concerning gender identity and 
sexual orientation in kindergarten 
through fifth grade, further than 
Florida’s K-3 bill. 
Medical 
groups, 
like 
the 
American Medical Association, are 
in great opposition to Alabama’s 
bill. Last year, the organization 
sent a letter to the National 
Governors Association describing 
the detrimental effects and risks 
of banning gender-affirming care 

for trans youth. In the letter, the 
AMA expressed specific concern 
for the higher risks of suicide and 
mental health disorders due to 
stress for transgender minors, 
and stated, “Studies suggest that 
improved body satisfaction and 
self-esteem following the receipt 
of gender-affirming care can have 
tragic health consequences, both 
mental and physical … Studies also 
demonstrate dramatic reductions 
in suicide attempts, as well as 
decreased rates of depression and 
anxiety.” 
Parents are often not licensed 
healthcare professionals, nor are 
they the primary educators for 
kids K-12. The bill is vague, and its 
interpretation has the capability 
to hurt not only the students but 
teachers. Between the ages of six 
to 18, children spend seven to eight 
hours, five days a week in a place 
that they expect will support them 
in their growth and development 
(and allow them to use the bathroom 
where they are most comfortable). 
Their social lives often primarily 
exist within the walls of these 
schools, as do the teachers and 
counselors they confide in. How 
can a bill that excludes help from 
every source other than a parent 
be truly supportive for a growing 
kid or teen? What does that mean 
for parents, who may work most of 
the day and cannot give the kind of 
support that their child deserves 
due to their time and circumstances 
of their home?
Upon learning about LGBTQ+ 
issues, some kids have big “ah-ha” 
moments. Sometimes, they have 
known it their whole life. Removing 
language about these topics will 
not stop children from being Queer, 
nor does including the language 
make the students automatically 
Queer. It will not suddenly make 
them reach out to their parents, 
either. The “Don’t Say Gay” bill 
merely removes the resources 
students rely on in turbulent times 
of their lives, when they are trying 
to figure themselves out, and 
hope that people accept them the 
way they are. Hate has no place in 
the classroom, and removing the 
conversation surrounding it will not 
solve the issues these parents and 
lawmakers are concerned about — 
it will merely silence them. 

Say Gay

O

ver the past few decades, 
climate 
change 
has 
become a major national 
political issue, finding its place at the 
center of the Democratic agenda. 
Despite widespread support among 
Democrats and the country as a 
whole for solving the issue, very 
little 
comprehensive 
legislation 
has been signed. Instead, solutions 
have come in the form of grandiose 
proposals, unbinding pledges and 
local programs with little impact. 
These policies have accomplished 
too little and have ultimately led to 
greater partisan divides that will 
undoubtedly hamper support for 
future solutions. If Democrats truly 
hope to solve the climate crisis before 
it’s too late, they must immediately 
reevaluate their policy platforms and 
find more reasonable solutions that 
can quickly gain national support.
It’s impossible to discuss climate 
policy in the Democratic Party 
without considering the Green 
New Deal, the landmark legislation 
proposed by U.S. Rep. Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., that would 
fundamentally alter our economy. 
Her plan calls for aggressively 
transitioning to net zero emissions 
by 2030, rapidly phasing out gas 
vehicles 
and 
weatherizing 
all 
buildings in the country to make 
them resistant to extreme weather. 
Beyond the climate proposals in 
the bill, Ocasio-Cortez advocates 
for guaranteed jobs for Americans, 
Medicare for All and a litany of other 
liberal wish list items. While the 
individual proposals of the bill are 
popular, the overall cost is estimated 
to be $16 trillion, a figure that would 
saddle future generations with 
insurmountable debt and likely 
cause severe long-term economic 
decline.
Though the Green New Deal 
carries an unreasonable price tag, 
more realistic solutions also face 
tremendous challenges. The idea 
of a carbon tax, popular among 
economists, would in theory account 
for the negative externalities that 
carbon emissions cause, but in 
practice would accomplish little 
more than hurting the U.S. economy 
relative 
to 
global 
competitors. 
Carbon taxes can be levied on both 
producers, through emissions taxes, 
and consumers, through taxes on 
carbon-intensive products. If levied 
on producers, we would need to 
implement a tax internationally 
in order to avoid directly harming 
American 
producers 
without 
affecting other nations. This seems 
unlikely to occur, and an American 
carbon tax might instead cause oil 
production to shift toward Russia 
and the Middle East, with overall 
global supply remaining unshaken.
If instead the tax was levied on 
consumers, it would likely have 
minimal 
effects, 
as 
consumer 
demand for gasoline is relatively 
inelastic 
and 
typically 
remains 
steady regardless of price. Further, as 
shown by the visceral responses that 
have accompanied recent price hikes 
at the pump, a carbon tax would be 

politically unpopular and quickly 
branded as a de facto tax against 
working Americans.
Among the existing solutions 
already implemented by states, some 
of the most prevalent include electric 
vehicle subsidies, solar credits and 
weatherization assistance. While 
nobody would argue that these 
programs present a comprehensive 
climate solution, evidence suggests 
that they may even do more harm 
than good for the environment. 
Because electric vehicles aren’t 
bound to the same energy efficiency 
standards as gas cars and most 
electricity is rooted in fossil fuels, 
the net social impact of government 
subsidies on electric vehicles has 
been found to be negative $742, 
showing that these subsidies have a 
net negative impact. While over the 
long-term we will eventually need 
to move toward electrification, we 
are not yet at a stage where electric 
products produce net emissions 
benefits. 
Solar credits, another good idea in 
theory, in actuality have an impact 
highly concentrated on wealthy 
families 
who 
could’ve 
already 
afforded to purchase solar to lower 
their energy costs. This diminishes 
the effects of solar credits that could 
instead go to poorer families less 
likely to invest in solar as a cost-
saving measure. In addition, since 
solar credits aren’t correlated with 
the amount of energy ultimately 
generated from panels, subsidy 
spending in areas whose climate 
is unfit for year-round solar use 
negatively 
impacts 
the 
overall 
effectiveness of the program. Finally, 
weatherization assistance, which 
is targeted at low-income families, 
actually has a social benefit of 9.5% 
less than its social cost because of 
the small carbon footprint that low-
income households produce.
With 
many 
proposed 
and 
existing 
solutions 
being 
either 
ineffective or unrealistic, we will 
have to look elsewhere for support 
in fighting climate change. While 
unpopular, perhaps the solution that 
best protects our economy while 
combating global warming would 
be to maintain the use of natural gas 
in the short run, while developing a 
network of nuclear plants to support 
long-term energy production. 
Natural gas has played a major 
role over the past several years in 
accelerating the shift away from 
coal and other fossil fuels, and 
concurrently reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions. Though an ideal 
solution to the climate crisis would see 
an immediate shift toward renewable 
energy sources, the infrastructure to 
support this transition is severely 
lacking, and thus any premature 
attempt to do so could cause energy 
shortages. While natural gas still 
does emit greenhouse gasses, it has 
a lower carbon footprints than other 
fossil fuels and remains a critical 
component of our short-term energy 
supply. Any attempt to restrict its 
use could cause energy price spikes 
that could have crippling economic 
impacts.
While natural gas may be our best 
bet in the short run, nuclear power 
is likely the most effective long-
term solution. Compared to nuclear 
plants, wind farms require 360 
times as much land area and solar 
facilities require 75 times the land 
area to produce the same amount of 
energy, making both unsustainable 
instruments 
for 
powering 
the 
country. Furthermore, wind and 
solar energy are both reliant on 
seasonal factors that would lead to 
an unreliable grid, whereas nuclear 
power can operate year-round. 
Most concerns around nuclear 
power center around the danger 
of a nuclear meltdown, but nuclear 
power is in fact one of the safest 
energy sources, with exceedingly low 
death rates from accidents compared 
to other power sources. The United 
States is already producing 19% of its 
electricity from just 97 reactors, so 
investing heavily in nuclear power 
would allow us to power the entire 
country with existing technology. 
Since the time frame we have to 
solve the climate crisis is so narrow, 
we don’t have the luxury of waiting 
for efficiency boosts in renewable 
power sources. Instead, we need to 
quickly invest in solutions that have a 
proven track record of success.
If the Democrats hope to pass 
meaningful climate legislation, they 
would be well served to redirect 
their energy from untenable plans 
that 
expend 
valuable 
political 
capital to more realistic solutions 
that transition to clean energy 
without risking energy shortages. 
With support for nuclear power and 
natural gas among conservatives, 
Democrats will have an easier time 
passing impactful legislation if they 
focus on those areas. While doing so 
would certainly not solve the entire 
crisis, it would finally be the tangible 
step in the right direction that we 
have been missing.

Climate extremism is unproductive 
— let’s focus on real solutions

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist

T

he 
secular 
American 
burial is in desperate need 
of diversification. It’s a 
little absurd that my only option 
after death seems to be sending my 
family shopping for a cushioned 
casket that properly “captures my 
essence,” only for it to be lowered 
into the ground to decompose and 
never be seen again by the living 
and entirely unbeknownst to my 
dead, impartial body. Frankly, this 
is far from how I would like to be 
laid to rest. 
As 
a 
self-proclaimed 
environmentalist, 
I 
was 
disappointed to find out that the 
traditional funeral process is 
not only expensive for grieving 
families but is also incredibly 
taxing on our environment. The 
embalming process, traditionally 
employed to prevent bodies from 
decaying before the “viewing” 
service 
in 
funerals, 
uses 
a 
toxic concoction of chemicals 
— 
including 
formaldehyde, 
menthol, phenol and glycerin — 
for preservation. An estimated 
800,000 gallons of formaldehyde 
are buried along with the bodies 

that harbor it, posing an acute 
health risk for anyone who is 
exposed to its carcinogenic fumes. 
Even the wood used in the 
construction of caskets and coffins 
is equivalent to roughly 4 million 
acres of forest, a dire figure in 
the face of mass deforestation. 
Even worse, cemeteries across 
the 
United 
States 
take 
up 
approximately 140,000 acres of 
land that require mass amounts of 
water and fertilizer to maintain, 
which could be alternatively used 
for housing or other productive 
lands.
Suppose 
cremation 
is 
any 
better? Think again. According 
to 
National 
Geographic, 
just 
one 
cremation 
“produces 
an 
average of 534.6 pounds of carbon 
dioxide,” and a year’s worth of 
cremations releases an estimated 
360,000 metric tons of CO2 into 
the atmosphere, which is enough 
energy to power about 70,000 
homes for a year. Cremation also 
releases a slew of carcinogenic 
chemicals into our air, including 
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 
mercury and sulfur dioxide, which 
are toxic to both humans and the 
environment. 
This is not to say traditional or 
religious burials that employ these 

methods should be discredited or 
fundamentally changed. Rather, 
people should be presented with 
a variety of options of what to do 
with their bodies postmortem if 
traditional burial practices do not 
speak to their values or morals. 
After all, one size certainly does 
not fit all — why should death be 
any different?
If traditional secular funerals 
aren’t for you, or if you want 
to 
leave 
the 
most 
minimal 
environmental impact after you 
die, here are a few alternative, 
green burial methods. 
One 
company, 
Coeio, 
has 
innovated what they coined as 
an “infinity burial suit,” which is 
woven with threads infused with 
infinity mushroom spores. These 
mushrooms were specifically bred 
to efficiently compost human 
flesh. The superpower of these 
mushrooms, mycoremediation, is 
a fungal process that absorbs and 
purifies toxins found in human 
bodies 
that 
would 
otherwise 
seep into and contaminate the 
environment. While the thought 
of being eaten by mushrooms 
may seem unsettling, I think that 
fungi repurposing my corpse into 
nutrients that will fertilize and 
cultivate the earth sounds like 

a whimsical, environmentally-
conscious dream death. 
Another 
practice, 
the 
sky 
burial, has been performed by 
Tibetan Buddhists for thousands 
of years. After death, a Burial 
Master cuts the deceased body 
into pieces and brings it to a 
selected site at a high elevation. 
Vultures, who congregate at these 
elevations, then eat the body, a 
tradition that Tibetan Buddhists 
believe allows for the soul to travel 
to the heavens and wait for the 
next reincarnation. While these 
sites have become more limited in 
recent years, sky burials are highly 
sustainable and nourish local 
carnivorous 
bird 
populations. 
With 
essentially 
no 
carbon 
footprint, this green burial is an 
example of how people have been 
using more sustainable burial 
practices for many years. 
Have an affinity for marine life 
and the ocean? Look no further. 
The Reef Ball Foundation has 
innovated what they call Reef 
Balls, which are made of special 
marine-grade concrete with a 
“pearl” center composed of the 
cremated remains of loved ones. 
Though cremation isn’t great for 
the environment as previously 
mentioned, these Reef Balls can 

be adorned by the family with 
concrete imprints and marine 
and 
environmentally-friendly 
sea glass and shells before being 
placed on the ocean floor in 
“Eternal Reefs” – cemeteries 
made of Reef Balls. “Designed to 
replicate the natural substrata 
that 
Mother 
Nature 
uses 
for 
her 
reef 
development,” 
Reef 
Balls’ 
perfectly 
neutral 
concrete pH invites a variety 
of marine organisms, including 
fish, 
microorganisms, 
oysters 
and coral, to propagate and 
reside within. Essentially, your 
memorial after death can be 
an opportunity to facilitate the 
survival and balance of marine 
life. 
A newer prototype, created 
by the company Capsula Mundi, 
is an egg-shaped, biodegradable 
pod that corpses would be placed 
in posthumously. Before death, 
the person selects a tree to be 
planted atop their pod after 
burial, allowing the body to 
nourish a piece of nature that 
will grow into a profound symbol 
of everlasting life. Instead of 
cemeteries filled with cement 
and faded gravestones, Capsula 
Mundi hopes to create flourishing 
sacred forests where families 

may visit and care for their loved 
ones who have been eternalized 
in nature. Not only is the ground 
burial a more environmental, 
historic practice, but the trees 
that grow will further replenish 
diminished forests while cleaning 
the air through photosynthesis. 
Spiritually 
and 
literally, 
this 
practice allows for the body to 
exist immortally as repurposed 
forms of nature.
What we decide to do with 
ourselves postmortem should not 
be a limited or generic choice, 
especially 
with 
the 
cultural, 
religious and spiritual significance 
of death. Instead, we should be 
encouraged to pursue our own 
unique 
paths 
of 
posthumous 
eternalization and provided with 
options to express our uniqueness 
and values after our lives have 
ended. For those of us who are 
secular or want to leave a minimal 
environmental impact, we should 
have the knowledge necessary to 
embrace the alternative options to 
traditional burials. As a contrast 
to the darkness and industrial 
nature of traditional burials, it is 
beautiful to visualize our bodies 
being reintroduced into the cycle 
of life in nature, which will carry 
us long after our passage.

Environmentally-friendly ways to die

SOPHIA LEHRBAUM
Opinion Columnist

Design by Leilani Baylis-Washington 

GISELLE MILLS
Opinion Columnist

