Combating corporate climate change

Commentary

CO2 present in the atmosphere today was produced by humans. This is a world-altering volume. We need to do everything we can to reduce it before its impact can no longer be reversed.

Sam Wendorf Staff Writer

Pollution is a problem. Most people recognize that the greenhouse gasses we put out into the atmosphere hurt the environment. A great number of sources can be blamed for these greenhouse gasses, but there is some debate about where they come from and how best to deal with them.

There are many harmful humanproduced gasses, but the one people tend to talk about most is carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the 1870s, humans have produced approximately 2,000 billion tons of CO2, half of which are still around today. To put that into perspective, there are currently a little over 3,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. A third of

Commentary

The solution is a matter of hot debate among environmentalists and large corporations. The argument boils down to three basic stances: corporations should reduce their carbon footprint by changing how they operate, consumers need to alter their lifestyles to lessen their day-to-day emissions or a mix of the two needs to be put into play.

While a mix of the two would be the most beneficial, the debate between consumers and corporations is paid a great deal of attention, especially by companies that produce a lot of greenhouse gasses, like car manufacturers, power plants and massproduction factories.

While these companies would like to make it seem as though ordinary people are responsible for global

“Only 100 companies produce over 70% of greenhouse gasses.” climate change by pointing the finger at our overuse of cars or how much meat we consume, the objective fact is that these companies produce the vast majority of CO2 emissions. Only 100 companies currently produce over 70% of greenhouse gasses. These companies are more interested in money than in protecting the planet. Some, such as oil firms, have even gone so far as to block policies that would help fight against climate change. They do not care about the consequences of their business as long as it turns a profit.

See Environment on page 4

Texas is too needle happy

the past and has recently been brought back to the limelight during the events leading up to Fratta’s execution.

By Jake Mireles Opinion Editor

In the state of Texas, which has a reputation for being a small govern ment safe haven, serious governmen tal overreach is occurring. Ever since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Texas has led the United States in state-sponsored executions, most of which utilize lethal injection. How ever, the government of Texas has recently come under scrutiny for being too needle-happy, and rightfully so.

According to an article from the Texas Tribune, this past January the state of Texas used an expired lethal injection to execute Robert Fratta, who was convicted of hiring two men to kill his wife following their divorce in 1994. Despite a contentious legal battle involving an Austin judge placing a temporary injunction on the execution due to the expired nature of the drugs, the Texas Supreme Court ultimately ruled against her. As a result, Fratta was promptly put to death using the expired cocktail. This practice has come under criticism in

The practice of extending the expiration dates on lethal injections is nothing new. Texas has long been criticized for this practice, including an incident in 2018 involving multiple doses of expired lethal injections.

Why is the state’s supply of lethal the world, including in the US, began refusing to supply drugs for the injections — out of either opposition to the death penalty or concerns about having their products associated with executions.”

As Texas’ supply of lethal injections dwindled, they turned to compound pharmacies, which are “state-regulated agencies that mix their own drugs without federal oversight,” accord- ing to the Texas Tribune. Even this was not a permanent solution to the supply issue, as the owners of these compound pharmacies soon came under heavy public scrutiny due to the nature of their product.

Since then, Texas has managed to maintain its supply of lethal injections to match the number of executions they schedule by regularly extending the expiration date of the doses on hand. This practice has received heavy amounts of criticism, as defense lawyers claim that the expired drugs can cause “painful executions.”

It is extremely alarming that our government continues to administer a life-ending drug that is well past its shelf life. While the ethical ramifications surrounding the use of capital punishment remain ever-changing, the standards of state-sponsored execution must remain air-tight. So why is the state of Texas so insistent on administering capital punishment using expired drugs with no consideration of the consequences? The pain induced by these drugs was nothing short of cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of the government. Texas must end its violation of the rights of prisoners on death row and cease its use of expired lethal injections.

Commentary

OPINION