United Airlines Winter Panther Pit

United Airlines continually mistreats animals

Emma Schoors

News Editorews Editor

United Airlines has got to get their pet-fl ying 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 fl ight aft er 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.

Th e story started gaining public traction when a 10-month old French bulldog named Kikoto suff ocated to death aft er being forced into an overhead bin by a fl ight attendant on a March 2018 fl ight. Th is inhumane incident should have kicked United into full gear and inspired them to change their pet-fl ying policies, but, once again, all the airline off ered 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 fl ying on United, died in fl ight due to heat stroke. “One of them is dead,” a worker reportedly said to Maggie Rizer, Bea’s owner, who had fl own another one of her dogs on the same fl ight. “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

Carter Castillo/Prowler

Airlines was responsible for the majority of animal deaths in fl ight 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 fl ying 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.

Th e anxiety that animals can endure while being so quickly put into a high-pressure plane is bad enough. Th ey should be taken care of just as well as their human counterparts while fl ying.

Stop blaming the public, corporations are at fault

Abby Gorman

Staff Writertaff 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.

Th e researchers behind the study suggested replacing typical metered-dose inhalers (which emit hydrofl uoroalkane, 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 shift ed to the general population.

While it is important to consider the environmental eff ects 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

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.

Th ese headlines suggest a false reality of a much larger issue; one that cannot be solved without the eff orts 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 shift ed 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 benefi ting 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 fi xing the problem is entirely your responsibility. It’s time for corporations to take initiative and solve the issues that they greatly infl uenced instead of fi nding somebody else to blame once again.

Slacktivism won’t cut itlacktivism won’t cut it

Manas Khatore

Entertainment Editorntertainment Editor

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 eff ects 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.

Th is phenomenon is just another example of slacktivism, in which people like, tweet, or repost so they canor “contribute” to a political cause online. Th e foundation for slacktivism is that it requires very little eff ort; reposting a video on one’s story takes about ten seconds maximum. People oft en 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 eff ort needed to make actual political change.

Slacktivism plays right into social media’s tendency for self-gratifi cation. Aft er posting something and receiving hundreds of nice comments, you tend to feel good about yourself. Th e same concept applies here; people feel satisfi ed aft er 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 off ensive 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? Th e only people aff ected 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. Th ere 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.