tuftsdaily.com
Opinion
7 Thursday, September 16, 2021
VIEWPOINT
Hurricane Ida’s devastation exposes greater climate issue at hand by Emily Nadler Opinion Editor
By the numbers themselves, it goes without saying that Hurricane Ida has brought immense destruction and desperation to the neighborhoods and areas it passed through. Nearly a hundred people have died from Ida’s tornadoes, extreme flooding and heavy winds. Ida has affected 22 states, plus Washington, D.C., and torn through 1,500 miles of the United States. Unfortunately, Ida’s devastation is not an isolated event. Evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that climate change is increasing the intensity of storms and resulting in damage that can not be undone. It is imperative that we take action now against climate change by limiting the emission of greenhouse gases and investing in the use of renewable energy. If we do not make dramatic changes, rising sea levels and intense storms will make the landscape of our world unrecognizable and the effects of extreme weather and federal policies will continue to disproportionately affect marginalized communities. As the Earth warms from the use of fossil fuels, the intensity of storms increases — a situation that António Guterres, the secretary-general of the U.N., called “a code red for humanity.” Guterres cited our proximity to the threshold of warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is considered the boundary between manageable or catastrophic changes to our climate and urged for immediate solutions that promote green economies and cleaner air. And while it is too late to reverse many of these changes, such as rising sea levels, it is not too late to take action which could reduce the use of many drivers of climate change.
BY JUJU ZWEIFACH The scale at which we must combat this crisis needs to be huge: while individual actions such as using less single-use plastic, reducing meat consumption and shopping more sustainably are important, change at the federal level is what will ultimately force big corporations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. One way the federal government can take action is to create a fee or a tax to motivate corporations to reduce emissions. This can take the form of requiring companies to pay a fee per each unit of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases emitted. Corporations are forced to either pay the fee or change their behavior. Since 2018, there have been nine proposed pieces of legislation by U.S. senators and representatives attempting to authorize a federal carbon tax. However, such legislation continuously fails to win the support it needs to pass. In addition to preventing further damage to the climate, there are actions the
government must take in order to mitigate the effects of a climate that causes extreme weather conditions like in the case of Hurricane Ida. Back in 2013, the federal government spent $1.3 billion on a storm surge barrier in order to prevent future storm surges in the area around New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. On account of this levee system, there was reduced flooding and less severe damages — and overall economic loss — under Hurricane Ida than under Hurricane Katrina 16 years ago. Even though implementing preventative systems can be costly, repairing cities after extreme natural disasters is extremely expensive. Since 2005, extreme weather has resulted in $450 billion in damages. This is money that could have been allocated toward preventative measures that would result in lasting change. Nonetheless, it’s important to note that systems such as the barrier in New Orleans are not a be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, many smaller working-class towns outside of New Orleans
did not reap the benefits of flood protection projects. In Larose, La., which is just over 50 miles from New Orleans, for decades local government officials have tried and failed to build a system similar to that of the one in New Orleans. It is most often low-income communities and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by climate policies. For areas with smaller populations or less economic leverage, it’s much harder to gain support and funding from the federal government. While the people of New Orleans were able to receive aid, communities like Larose were largely forgotten. Without concrete action, hurricanes at the same level of Hurricane Ida, or worse, will continue to wreak havoc and bring further devastation and hardship. Those that can afford to move might try to escape areas more susceptible to extreme weather. Those that can’t afford to leave will be left behind and face the greatest consequences of climate change. Without intervention, these areas might not survive.
VIEWPOINT
The extremity of the Texas abortion ban: What this means for women in the U.S. by Sara Kessel Opinion Editor
On Wednesday, Sept. 1, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to uphold what is now the most repressive abortion law in the United States. The structure of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) mirrors the “heartbeat bills” of states like Georgia and Ohio, banning abortions past the detection of a fetal heartbeat. However, the law in Texas is the first to bypass federal blocking due to a backdoor provision that calls for enforcement by civil action rather than by the state itself. Instead of designating government officials to enforce the law, SB 8 gives citizens the ability to sue anyone who aids an unlawful abortion and allows them to collect at least $10,000 in the process. The implementation of this law presents a terrifying reality for Texan women, as abortions are banned six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy. Around 85% of all abortion procedures previously provided in the state of Texas would now be prohibited under the new law. Most women cannot even tell they are pregnant before the six-week mark. Forcing clinics to abide by this deadline virtually eliminates any possibility of receiving an abortion without breaking the law.
Consequently, this may propel many women to access abortions through unsafe methods, likely without assistance from the medical providers and doctors who are at risk of getting sued. Traveling across borders, taking harmful substances or allowing untrained individuals to terminate a pregnancy are all different routes women may choose when there is no safe alternative. In the hours before the law went into effect, call centers transformed into helplines for desperate women. The law states that while patients themselves cannot be sued, citizens are free to sue clinics. This threat, along with the ban on abortions at six weeks of pregnancy, has contributed to a decline in the number of women coming into abortion clinics. If clinics are found to be in violation of the law and sued, the ability for them to remain open becomes less and less likely. For those most vulnerable, including young, rural, low-income women and women of color, mass closure of abortion services presents a disproportionally harmful impact. Pro-choice advocates have been rightfully alarmed at the spike in anti-abortion legislation over the past year. For anti-abortion leaders and proponents, the precedent that SB 8 sets may legitimize the possibility of over-
turning Roe v. Wade and enacting similar laws nationwide. Across the 47 states where restrictions have been introduced, there is enormous potential for this kind of strategy to be used when drafting new legislation. Additionally, enforcement by private action could be used to enact laws that restrict other federal rights. If a state wants to restrict anything from same-sex marriage to voter registration, they can simply justify it by enforcement through civil lawsuits rather than through government channels. We cannot remain silent about this direct attack on the rights and safety of Texan women and we cannot let this new, terrifying reality in Texas become the standard for abortion access in the country. The Biden administration has verbally attacked the law, calling it blatantly unconstitutional and suing Texas through the Justice Department on these grounds. However, there is no guarantee that this action will have the same impact as congressional legislation. The House of Representatives will soon vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act in the hopes of preserving abortion rights for women in all states. Putting pressure on our representatives to vote in favor of the bill can stop SB 8 and any future policies in its image.
BY SAM FARBMAN
It is just as important that we involve ourselves within our own communities. Supporting local organizations such as Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts and the Boston Abortion Support Collective can provide crucial assistance to women seeking resources and aid in the greater Boston area. Joining prochoice organizations on campus is one way we can advocate for women’s reproductive rights. At Tufts, Students for NARAL fights for the right to choose through political advocacy and community engagement. As women’s rights are at risk of being ripped away, we must all do our part in protecting a woman’s right to choose.
