100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 20, 2022 - Image 9

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

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

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan