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

