6
opinion Panther Prowler • Dec. 6 2019
United Airlines continually mistreats animals
Emily Nagamoto/Prowler
Emma Schoors News Editor United Airlines has got to get their pet-flying policies under control, or they will be the face of airline malpractice to pet owners all over the world. A two-and-a-half year old Neopolitan Mastiff named Bam Bam died on a 2012 United flight after being put in a metal luggage cart without air conditioning. “His tongue was hanging out so far, it couldn’t have hung out any farther. He just looked awful,” Michael Jarboe, Bam Bam’s owner, said. United did not take responsibility, only releasing an apology. The story started gaining public traction when a 10-month old French bulldog named Kikoto suffocated to death after being forced into an overhead bin by a flight attendant on a March 2018 flight. This inhumane incident should have kicked United into full gear and inspired them to change their pet-flying policies, but, once again, all the airline offered was a mere apology. A passive one at that, which claimed the attendant was unaware that a pet was in the kennel in the overhead bin. Perhaps the most apathy-infected incident of all is when Bea, a golden retriever flying on United, died in flight due to heat stroke. “One of them is dead,” a worker reportedly said to Maggie Rizer, Bea’s owner, who had flown another one of her dogs on the same flight. “Our little Beatrice died in pain, scared, and alone,” Rizer said, expressing that the attendant was “emotionless” when delivering the news. Heat stroke is a common cause for these deaths, and taking proper precautions can easily prevent it from happening. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, United
ler
row
lo/P
stil r Ca
e
Cart
Manas Khatore Entertainment Editor
Airlines was responsible for the majority of animal deaths in flight in 2017. 18 of the 24 animals killed on airlines were in the care of United. Comparatively, both American and Delta Airlines reported two animal deaths. Simple apologies, no matter how heartfelt, are useless without action. United needs to make real, structural changes to their pet flying policies to make sure there are no more avoidable deaths of animals like Bam Bam, Bea or Kikoto. Some meaningful steps could include temperature-control, better ventilation and special tags to make sure attendants are aware of where these pets are on the plane. The anxiety that animals can endure while being so quickly put into a high-pressure plane is bad enough. They should be taken care of just as well as their human counterparts while flying.
Stop blaming the public, corporations are at fault Abby Gorman Staff Writer A study published in BMJ Open Medical Journal recently made headlines with a collection of new research involving the impact of asthmatics on the world’s carbon footprint. The researchers behind the study suggested replacing typical metered-dose inhalers (which emit hydrofluoroalkane, a type of greenhouse gas) with a more environmentally friendly alternative. However, this was not what many took away from the study; rather, the recurring theme of the responsibility for lowering global emissions being shifted to the general population. While it is important to consider the environmental effects of your daily routine and make lifestyle changes within your personal reach, it is extremely unrealistic to suggest that the use of inhalers even slightly compares to the extent of pollution from large-scale corporations. Emily Augustine/Prowler
Slacktivism won’t cut it
According to a report from the United Kingdom’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the nation’s total carbon footprint was 449 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, out of which only 0.635 million tons, or about 0.14% of the total, could be directly linked to inhalers. These headlines suggest a false reality of a much larger issue; one that cannot be solved without the efforts of major corporations and industries. In fact, the 2017 Carbon Majors Report found that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of the global emissions since 1988. Yet, the blame for the extent of carbon emissions is always shifted to the public. Similarly, the recent introduction of electric cars and plastic straw alternatives have been advertised as necessities, leading the public to believe that the solution is within their own reach. But, by encouraging individuals to purchase these products for additional expenses, the same companies responsible for the majority of global emissions are benefiting from the general public with comparably little impact. Using electric cars and reducing plastic straw usage may be helpful on a smaller scale, but ultimately has next to no impact when compared to the massive global oil and gas industries. Whether it be inhalers, paper straws or electric cars, don’t be convinced that fixing the problem is entirely your responsibility. It’s time for corporations to take initiative and solve the issues that they greatly influenced instead of finding somebody else to blame once again.
As I was scrolling through Instagram the other day, I noticed something in common between the people that I follow. Everyone had reposted a video on the effects of climate change on the coral reef on their story. While the video was very informative, I had to wonder: do that many people really care about coral reefs? Considering the amount of plastic bags and bottles I see around campus, probably not. This phenomenon is just another example of slacktivism, in which people like, tweet, or repost so they canor “contribute” to a political cause online. The foundation for slacktivism is that it requires very little effort; reposting a video on one’s story takes about ten seconds maximum. People often engage in slacktivism to make it seem like they are politically active, when in reality, they are contributing almost nothing to the cause. As a result, this increasing culture of laziness undermines the effort needed to make actual political change. Slacktivism plays right into social media’s tendency for self-gratification. After posting something and receiving hundreds of nice comments, you tend to feel good about yourself. The same concept applies here; people feel satisfied after simply liking or reposting something political, thinking that they have done enough to contribute to the cause. But let’s be honest: how does liking a post do anything to bring change to society? Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave seeing this. We all saw this play out recently with the shooting at Saugus High School. I witnessed someone make an offensive joke about the tragedy, to which they were reprimanded by their friends. A couple of hours later, I saw that same person post “Pray for Saugus” on their Instagram story in order to “redeem” themselves. If that doesn’t show how useless these posts are, I don’t know what does. However, it wasn’t just that one person who shared the post. Almost every single person I know had “Pray for Saugus” on their story. Along with this, many were urging their classmates to wear blue the next day to show solidarity. While I understand the motivation behind it, does wearing blue really help Saugus or America’s gun violence epidemic? The only people affected are those wearing blue themselves; they feel good about “standing up for a cause” even though they didn’t do anything meaningful. Because of this, no change occurs and the cycle repeats itself. By “making change,”, I don’t necessarily mean leading a national protest movement. There are smaller ways to contribute to a cause, such as volunteering or connecting with organizations that you’re passionate about. Our generation needs to understand that actions like these speak volumes more than a simple retweet.
