D
espite an action-packed
snowball fight on the
Diag, winter this year has
been unseasonably mild in the
state of Michigan. As rampant
carbon emissions cause higher
temperatures, climate change is
becoming increasingly concerning
for
scientists,
activists
and
politicians alike. Two-thirds of
Americans believe the government
needs to be doing more to address
climate change, but how those
actions should take place is still up
for debate.
In a new series from The
Michigan Daily Opinion section
we’re calling Jack v. Jack, we —
Jack Brady and Jack Kapcar — will
be presenting opposing arguments
on the government’s role in
solving the climate crisis. Both
of us have written about climate
before, and often take opposing
stances on political issues. In
this edition, Jack Brady will be
arguing for limited government
involvement in solving the climate
crisis. Jack Kapcar will be arguing
the opposite; government is a
necessary third party that can
steer businesses in a greener
direction.
Jack Brady:
‘At
best,
government
is
incompetent.
At
worst,
it
is
dangerously incompetent. Let’s
find a better way’
A 2022 report by the United
Nations warns that the window
to address climate change is
closing. Rising temperatures and
increasingly severe weather events
should shock lawmakers into
action, but the response on Capitol
Hill has been mixed. Sen. Ted
Cruz, R-Texas, retweeted a thread
calling climate change a hoax last
year. Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., predicted
that we only have 12 years left
before the end of the world (three
of which we’ve already burned).
With outright climate denial on
the Right and doomsaying on the
Left, realistic government action
looks unlikely.
But realistic is what we need.
Extremism doesn’t solve problems.
Liberals
have
successfully
convinced
the
majority
of
American voters to support the
Green New Deal, but to adopt
such a proposal would be a
mistake. Demanding a cleaner
infrastructure, job market and
power grid, its aims are well-
intentioned.
But
good-hearted
ambition requires specifics, and
the Green New Deal offers very
few. Calling to meet “100 percent
of the power demand in the United
States through clean, renewable,
and zero-emission energy sources”
while
simultaneously
creating
“millions of good, high-wage jobs,”
the 14-page document makes big
promises without ever articulating
a clear plan.
We must walk thoughtfully,
never moving an inch without
careful
consideration.
Clumsy,
arbitrary steps ruin lives. 1.7
million Americans work directly
for the fossil fuel industry, and
millions more depend on it. Drastic
shifts in policy will displace them.
Although the Green New Deal
promises “training … for workers
affected by the transition,” the
evidence suggests that it won’t
work. The Department of Labor
released a study in 2016 revealing
that federal job training programs
lead neither to higher wages
nor the intended occupation for
participants.
More
feasible
options,
like
carbon capture technology and
nuclear energy, are far less risky
to the public than large-scale
government
intervention.
We
still live in a world powered
predominantly by fossil fuels, and
any serious solution must reckon
with this fact. Carbon capture is
an effective way to combat climate
change without moving away from
non-renewable resources faster
than we can handle. Factories
and power plants can use this
technology to reduce their carbon
dioxide emissions by over 90%,
allowing the U.S. to ease into a
sustainable future rather than
plunge into it.
Nuclear power, as a clean and
efficient alternative to carbon,
must also play a larger role in the
future. Solar panels and wind
turbines rely upon the time of day
and weather conditions to properly
function, but nuclear power does
not suffer from such limitations.
Nuclear power does come with
drawbacks — namely, radioactive
waste — but they are far more
manageable than maintaining a
power grid entirely dependent on
clear skies and a steady breeze.
Already, most nuclear plants in
the U.S. are controlled by private
companies, making the industry
highly subject to market forces.
At
best,
government
is
incompetent.
At
worst,
it
is
dangerously
incompetent.
Regardless of who sits in the Oval
Office, rule by decree is never as
successful as letting the American
people and free market find their
own solution. The climate crisis
will not be solved by an executive
order or a congressional wish list
like the Green New Deal.
Government’s positive role to
play is funding the right projects.
Last August, President Joe Biden
signed the Inflation Reduction Act
into law, dedicating $369 billion
to fighting climate change, much
of which will go toward further
development of nuclear power. In
2020, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas,
introduced and saw passed two
bills to subsidize more research
into enhancing carbon capture.
With an informed, practical and
economic response, America can
and must be a global leader in the
fight against climate change.
Jack Kapcar:
‘Government is a necessary
third party’
The core problem with relying
on the private sector to solve
climate change is a simple lesson
that
anyone
who
has
taken
Econ 101 can identify. Because
carbon-emitting
firms
don’t
need to account for the effects
that their emissions have on the
environment, those firms will
naturally produce more than what
is in society’s best interest. This is
called a negative externality.
To efficiently account for this
externality, a third party like
the
government
must
create
barriers that force firms to lower
emissions. Taxes and regulations
can increase the cost of production
and lower the amount of carbon
produced, but even more effective
is a cap-and-trade system.
Under
cap-and-trade,
a
government distributes a “capped”
number of permits that every
emitter of greenhouse gasses can
purchase. Those emitters can then
“trade” those permits with other
emitters at the price dictated by
the market. Cap-and-trade was
successfully deployed in the U.S.
in the 1990s to limit emissions that
cause acid rain, resulting in an 81%
improvement in stream and river
health today. Similar programs
targeting carbon emissions have
also been introduced in Europe
with positive results.
Cap-and-trade
represents
a
market-based solution to climate
change. Often, when we speak
about
sweeping
government
solutions
to
major
problems,
those solutions are automatically
associated with inefficiency and
bureaucracy. There are, of course,
popular examples to validate this
feeling, but this doesn’t mean that
the government is inherently bad
at doing things. Government-led
infrastructure spending produced
some of the most groundbreaking
projects of the past century and is
one of the most effective means of
stimulating economic growth.
To
keep
green
energy
investments
efficient,
the
government
needs
to
better
recognize when and where its
involvement is needed. In projects
that require facilitation between
business and community leaders
or where the job is too large for
the market to take on, government
leadership
is
appropriate.
In
smaller
industries,
subsidizing
existing projects and relying on
market forces is more effective.
Done
correctly,
government
involvement
brings
a
vital
advantage in the fight against
climate change.
Improving technology can also
improve efficiency. By funding
scientific studies and research
at
academic
institutions,
the
government can help develop and
implement new technologies that
reduce emissions and mitigate
the impacts of climate change.
The U.S. does, by a large margin,
the most research in the world,
in part because of our prolific,
government-supported academic-
industrial complex. Continuing
this innovative tradition requires
government involvement, and can
be used to combat climate change.
Regulations
are
another
powerful tool that can address
the climate crisis. It’s true that
regulations can create incentives
for finding loopholes, but they
also incentivize the exploration of
new technological alternatives. As
more countries around the globe
commit to lowering emissions,
large firms are beginning to see the
value in diversifying their revenue
streams to become more climate-
friendly. Oil-producing giant BP,
for instance, caused shockwaves
after it decided to restructure itself
as a renewable energy provider.
Further
regulation
of
carbon
will continue to push companies
like BP toward exploring new
sustainable technologies.
For too long, climate change
has been framed as a solution
for consumers to solve. Slogans
like “Together, we can solve the
climate crisis” that dot activist
websites are inspiring, but using a
burlap grocery bag can only go so
far. Increasingly, we need large,
sweeping
government
action
to solve the climate-associated
problems
businesses
and
consumers are either unwilling or
unable to address.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, February 15, 2023
Does winning matter?
T
ake a moment and picture
this: LeBron James never
leaves
the
Cleveland
Cavaliers, his boyhood team,
never joins the Los Angeles
Lakers, and, as a result, never
comes home and wins the 2016
NBA Finals with the Cavs. That
would make 2023 James’s 20th
year in the NBA without a ring
to his name. Sounds weird,
right? I imagine the narrative
surrounding
his
potential
Greatest Of All Time status would
be vastly different than what it is
today.
That’s where Harry Kane,
soccer’s golden boy and captain
of
England’s
national
soccer
team, finds himself. One of the
best in the world, he is stuck
between staying loyal to his
boyhood club and joining a team
that can actually compete for big
trophies. If recent reports are
to be believed, it seems like he
has chosen the former, sparking
widespread debate among fans
across the world, including some
in Ann Arbor.
“I think you’ll appreciate this,
professor,” I began, knowing
full well that the gentleman who
teaches my Writing 200 class is
a Spurs fan, the team Kane plays
for. “This image reminded me
of Harry Kane and his lack of
trophies.”
I heard a couple of sighs,
maybe even a scoff. But mainly,
I heard laughter. The consensus
was unanimous: It was pretty
embarrassing that Kane had
nothing to show for his career.
As many experts in the field
have suggested, it shows a lack
of ambition and hunger. It shows
cowardice.
Competition is the cornerstone
upon which sport has been built,
and is one of the primary reasons
sport appeals to so many people.
However, it does seem like with
every passing generation, the
emphasis on fun has increased,
regardless of who wins or loses.
‘Winning and losing doesn’t
matter, what matters is that you
give it your best and have fun.’
That’s the kind of talk you’re
likely to hear at a middle school
sporting event, and it definitely
splits opinions. For every person
that thinks competition and loss
build character and make children
stronger, there is someone who
believes that playing shouldn’t
be about fighting and divisions,
but instead about bringing people
together.
Regardless of which side of
this specific debate you fall on,
we all know one thing: Winning
excites people! This phenomenon
is something that the mass media
have latched on to for decades. An
early example of this occurred in
the mid-1900s when the USA and
USSR contested the infamous
“Space Race” — the quest to
put a person on the moon. Neil
Armstrong’s first steps on the
moon, the definitive end of the
Space Race, were seen by millions
across the world, a result of people
asking one simple question: Who
is going to win?
In
the
years
that
have
followed,
turning
everything
from elections to court trials into
a spectacle has served the media
well. In doing so, a very simple,
yet powerful, message is being
delivered and ingrained into
viewers’ mindsets: The result is
all that matters.
This obsession with results
often gets the better of us.
History and legacy are the kinds
of things that can make our heads
turn, because with them comes
a sense of immortality. Without
even realizing it, our driving
force turns from trying to push
our limits and give it our best shot
to wanting to be remembered
forever.
As I see it, there’s nothing
wrong with going into something
with the intention to win, and
that’s what we should tell our
kids when they’re playing in the
playground or participating in
a competition. However, it is
equally important to teach them
that no result is permanent — that
this too shall pass. Though that
phrase is almost exclusively used
during bad times, it is a sound
concept that applies even when
things are looking good. Having
the awareness to recognize that
is crucial.
Maybe
then,
the
younger
generation will grow up with the
understanding that the same idea
stands true, not only in sports
but in all aspects of life. Neither
victory nor defeat is everlasting.
After every failure, there’s an
opportunity to make amends.
After every success, there’s an
opportunity to improve.
There is one potential exception
to this idea, one competing
priority when competing for the
dopamine of victory: How are we
making our competitors — many
of whom worked just as hard as
us — feel? No achievement can
have the same lasting impact as
kindness and generosity. The
people who will be remembered
have a lot more to them than
their victories. Their character,
even without the wins, stands
alone — a representation of who
they truly are. For those people,
the wins aren’t the destination,
they are just a step in the right
direction.
RUSHABH SHAH
Opinion Columnist
W
hen
we
perceive
a
person,
we
subconsciously
take in a collection of visual
details. We notice hair color,
eye color, weight, skin color
and height. All of these factors
of physical appearance impact
the way people are perceived
to varying degrees. However,
I’d like to specifically focus on
the ways height contributes to
someone’s societal perception.
When
you
examine
our
societal
structures
closely,
height is at the center of many
heteronormative relationships,
leadership dynamics, athletic
opportunities and more.
Does height contribute to
our
social
status?
Certain
studies show that yes, height
has
a
positive
correlation
with social status, meaning
that taller individuals have
increased
social
standing.
In fact, this study shows
that humans subconsciously
prioritize taller individuals by
yielding to them in the street
and avoiding physical contact
with them more intentionally,
suggesting that height can
influence
our
perceptions
of a person’s authority and
dominance. This subconscious
hierarchy may be harmless,
but
this
concept
spreads
deeper.
Being tall can correlate
across
all
genders
with
making more money, or even
being better educated. This
seemingly insignificant trait
is
actually
deeply
rooted
in how societal success is
constructed. Given that height
is an attribute that cannot be
changed, this is problematic.
Furthermore, this hierarchy
can
perpetuate
racism,
as
Asian and African countries,
such as Vietnam and Nigeria,
tend to have shorter average
heights, while predominantly
white countries, such as the
Netherlands,
Norway
and
Denmark, tend to have taller
average heights.
Additionally,
society
has manufactured a sort of
“acceptable
height
range.”
Although research has shown
many advantages to being
tall, one can also be “too
tall.” You become a villain at
concerts, in auditoriums and
have troubles on planes and
buying well-fitted clothing.
In general, when it comes
to
physical
characteristics,
society isolates the “outliers.”
Given society’s narrow and
unrealistic standards, being
too heavy, too tall, too short,
too thin or not able-bodied
enough makes existing that
much harder.
More trivially, height serves
as the distinguishing factor
in what sports you can play
from a young age. While being
short serves as an advantage in
sports such as gymnastics and
diving, being tall serves as an
advantage in basketball and
volleyball. In the modeling
world, both male and female
models are expected to be tall.
The clearest way in which
height norms are prevalent
is in dating, specifically in
heterosexual couples. There’s
no doubt that to many people,
height is a firm determinant of
who they can date. Specifically,
women who are interested in
men generally prefer men who
are taller than them; this norm
is diligently followed: 92.5% of
couples satisfy the taller-man-
shorter-women standard. This
can stem from evolutionary
impulses, feeling protected in
a dangerous world for women
or simply feeling pressured to
keep up with the social norm.
Recently, there’s been a
rise in the use of the term
“short kings,” in an attempt
to celebrate short men who
are
often
disadvantaged
in
society
romantically,
athletically and in regard to
power. Television Shows such
as “The Sex Lives of College
Girls” have dedicated whole
storylines celebrating short
kings. Despite this trend, 55%
of women (from a sample of
U.S. inhabitants), still say they
will only date taller men.
Tall women can also fall
victim to dating expectations
around
height,
and
to
expectations
surrounding
femininity.
Specifically,
many men prefer a woman
who weighs less than them,
meaning
that
the
taller
women are expected to be
slimmer in order to be deemed
“attractive.”
“Body positivity” is a term
that was coined on social
media in 2012, and has gained
increasing popularity in the
succeeding years. The term
is meant to celebrate and
love our bodies as they are,
instead of surrendering to
the societal pressures to hate
them.
Although
the
term
was originally designed to
celebrate bodies of all weights,
there have been conversations
about
expanding
what
the
term
encompasses.
Specifically, given what I’ve
discussed thus far, including
height in this movement is an
essential move forward. While
less talked about than weight,
height
is
a
distinguishing
factor in how society views
individuals,
and
therefore
should be included in the body
positivity movement. As seen
in the previously cited studies,
height drastically influences
the way we are perceived by
those around us. We should be
teaching ourselves and others
to love our bodies, including
our height, and try to reject
norms that prohibit this.
Why is height so important
to us? Why do we prioritize it
so openly both consciously and
subconsciously? We know that
height can affect how people
see
themselves
and
how
they are perceived by others.
Everyone’s body is unique, and
differences in height, like any
other physical characteristic,
should not be a source of
insecurity. While many people
are unaware of the ways
height frames our perceptions
of others, actively trying to
curb the associations we make
with someone being short or
tall is essential in promoting
inclusivity.
Jack v. Jack: Should ‘Big
Government’ solve climate change?
JACK BRADY &
JACK KAPCAR
Opinion Columnists
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
From short kings to tall queens:
It’s time to reevaluate the way we
view height
CLAUDIA FLYNN
Opinion Columnist
Design by Arunika Shee