11 December 20
On Donations if We Slip We’re Dead
RSN financial stability has been badly damaged by months of reduced fundraising returns. If we slip now the organization is done.
The good news is that it doesn’t take much to right the ship.
Take a moment to donate what you can afford. That will do it.
Sincere thanks to all.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
10 December 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bernie Sanders | Not $300. Not $600. $1,200 at a Minimum.
Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
Sanders writes: "I am writing to share with you two reasons this COVID-relief debate is so important: one which is easy for everyone to understand, and one no one is talking about."
First, we are obviously in an unprecedented moment in American history with extraordinary suffering happening all across the country. One out of four workers are either unemployed or making less than $20,000 a year, more than 90 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured, tens of millions of people face eviction, and hunger in America is exploding. And the American people understand that in a democratic civilized society, we cannot have more desperation out there than at any time since the Great Depression.
So Congress cannot leave unless we get at least $1,200 in direct payments for every working class adult and at least $500 for their children. Not $300. Not $600. $1,200 at a minimum. More than that, we must extend supplemental unemployment benefits and get adequate aid for cities and states.
Here in Washington, there’s endless amounts of money for war. Congress is about to pass a $740 billion defense spending bill and no one seems to care about the price tag there. Tax breaks for billionaires? Endless amounts of money. Corporate welfare? Endless amounts of money.
Now when children are going hungry in America and so many families are struggling, suddenly we don’t have enough money? Wrong.
Further, this isn’t the $900 billion bill everyone is claiming it to be. It includes $560 billion passed and unused from the CARES Act. Which means there is only around $360 billion of “new money” in this bill.
Remember, several months ago the Democratic House passed the HEROES Act of $3 trillion. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin offered $1.8 trillion for an agreement, but now somehow we have been reduced to accepting $360 billion in “new money.” That is not acceptable.
Secondly, here is something else not many people are talking about:
And that is that this bill will set the agenda for the first two years of the Biden administration. Are we going to have austerity economics, or are we going to have a progressive agenda that meets the needs of the working people of this country?
When Trump was president, spending money was not an issue. But now my Republican colleagues are so deeply worried about the national debt once again.
If we are concerned about the debt, we need progressive taxation, we need to end corporate welfare, we need to end the bloated military budget, but we do not need, in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, to punish working families who are hurting so badly today.
And if we allow Republicans to set the agenda, to set the parameters of the debate, the next two to four years will be a disaster.
If you want a Green New Deal or even support for Biden’s climate proposal, where is the money going to come from? If you want to expand health care or rebuild our infrastructure, where is the money going to come from?
So the question is, are we going to return to Mitch McConnell’s austerity politics, or are we going to build a dynamic economy that works for everyone and not just the 1 percent?
So it is our job, today, to send a message to the Republican and Democratic leadership that we must stand tall and fight for the working people of this country, because they need us more than ever:
If there is any hope in this terrible pandemic, I hope that it shows us how far behind the rest of the world we are in taking care of our people, and that it inspires us to stand up and make our voices heard on issues like Medicare for All and paid family and medical leave.
Once again, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to significantly improve this bill. The American people need our help, and what happens next will set the agenda for the next two years.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
Sen. David Perdue, R-GA, at a Senate hearing in June. (photo: Caroline Brehman/Getty Images)
Sen. David Perdue Sold His Home to a Finance Industry Official Whose Organization Was Lobbying the Senate
Robert Faturechi, ProPublica
Excerpt: "The same year FINRA was lobbying the Senate on a bill, one of its board governors paid Perdue $1.8 million for his D.C. townhouse."
Perdue sits on the Senate Banking Committee, which oversaw the bill.
en. David Perdue, R-Ga., sold his Washington, D.C., home last year to a brokerage industry official whose organization is under the purview of a committee Perdue sits on.
The deal was made off market, without the home being listed for sale publicly.
Though an appraisal provided to ProPublica by the buyer found that Perdue sold for slightly under market value, four local real estate experts disagreed, telling ProPublica that the almost $1.8 million sale price Perdue garnered seemed high. Their estimates of the premium ranged from a few thousand dollars to as much as about $140,000. A fifth expert said the price was squarely fair market value.
Ultimately, congressional ethics experts said, their concern was that Perdue sold privately and to someone whose organization that he oversaw as a senator.
“Determining fair market value is always a gray area, unless the sales are done in a competitive open market,” said Craig Holman with the watchdog group Public Citizen. “Since the purchase and sale of this property by Sen. Perdue was not done on the open market, it raises serious suspicions as to whether the sale was in fact at fair market value.”
If the price was above fair market value, Holman said, “this would be a violation of his ethical obligations and an opportunity for those with business pending before Perdue’s committee to curry favor.”
A Perdue spokesperson said that the senator and his wife sold the townhouse at fair market price, and that the lender appraisal confirmed that.
“None of this had anything to do with the senator’s official role,” the spokesperson said. “The Perdues did not know any of the individuals, and they used the same realtor during the purchase and sale of the property.”
Perdue’s office provided a statement from the couple’s real estate agent, Justin Paulhamus: “Since inventory was so limited at the time of the sale, we priced it at market value and were fortunate to get an offer.”
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator’s real estate agent “floated it off market first, and they would have put it on market, but got an offer at their asking price which was fair market value.”
Perdue is locked in a runoff campaign against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff. Along with fellow Georgia Republican Kelly Loeffler’s race against Raphael Warnock, his contest could determine which party controls the Senate and with it, whether President-elect Joe Biden can implement much of his agenda.
Perdue has faced multiple allegations that he has mixed his private financial interests with his official work. The most prolific stock trader in the Senate, he bought and sold shares in companies that the committees he sits on have jurisdiction over. Some of his trades came at fortunate times. Earlier this year, the Justice Department investigated him and other lawmakers for possible insider trading. Perdue denied the allegations. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring charges against him.
Perdue’s home buyer in October 2019 was Hillary Sale, a board governor for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a privately funded self-regulatory body for the securities industry. The organization falls under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee, which Perdue sits on. Earlier in 2019, FINRA was lobbying on a bill out of the banking committee that would have required the organization to establish a fund to pay investors bilked by brokers.
A FINRA spokesman said the organization has not lobbied Perdue specifically. In a statement, Sale said she learned of the home though her real estate agent and never interacted with Perdue. She provided ProPublica with an appraisal from her lender showing the home was valued at $1.8 million, $11,000 over the amount she paid. Samer Kuraishi, who leads a real estate agency in Washington, said appraisals are done after a price is agreed to, and that they typically are engineered to match the sales price.
Perdue may have saved thousands by not putting his house on the open market.
Kuraishi and other experts said that when doing off-market deals, sellers can negotiate to pay their agents a smaller commission.
“In that scenario, an agent spends less on staging, less on marketing, less on open houses, less on virtual tours,” he said. “It’s typically an easier sale.”
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator paid broker fees, but did not respond to questions about whether the fees were discounted.
Perdue’s Capitol Hill home and many of those around it were built in the early 2000s by EYA, a developer that specializes in luxury townhomes that maintain the look and feel of historic buildings but come with amenities typically reserved for more suburban locales. They have individual garages and private courtyards. Perdue’s home featured a rentable separate unit, connected to the main house through interior stairs.
At the time of the sale, FINRA was lobbying the Senate, according to its disclosure forms, and earlier that year its lobbyists were specifically focused on a bill that would have required the organization to establish a relief fund to provide investors with arbitration awards that went unpaid by FINRA’s brokerage firms and brokers. The bill was authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and fell under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee.
The committee had also held hearings that included harsh assessments of how well FINRA was policing its own. In 2018, an AFL-CIO official charged that FINRA was failing as a regulator because it was not forcing its members to pay the arbitration settlements.
Perdue’s office declined to answer questions about where the senator stood on the bill, which did not pass, or whether he took any actions on it.
Ethics experts are generally troubled when politicians enter into transactions with people who have business before them. The legality of this sale hinges on whether the home was purchased at fair market value. If it was Apurchased for more than that, it would be considered a gift. Gifts of significant value to senators are required to be publicly disclosed. Perdue did not disclose any such gifts.
Earlier this year, ProPublica reported that Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sold his Washington townhouse to a donor and powerful lobbyist who had business before him. Burr’s office said the lawmaker notified the Senate Ethics Committee before the sale. Perdue’s office declined to say if he took similar steps. The committee does not typically make such guidance public, and it did not respond to questions about whether Perdue sought advice in this case.
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict, members of Congress who are buying or selling properties should do so on the open market to help ensure the price paid is fair and to avoid deals with people who have business before them, ethics experts say.
The five local real estate agents who reviewed the transaction for ProPublica had somewhat differing opinions about whether Perdue got an inflated price and, if so, how inflated. All cautioned that valuing a property is not an exact science.
One agent, assuming Perdue did not make significant improvements to the property while living there, priced the home at around $1,650,000. That would mean Perdue sold for about 8% over market. His office declined to say whether he had made those kinds of upgrades, but photos, the agent said, suggest he did not.
A second agent said the price also seemed high, but only about 2% over market value. The agent said prominent officials selling homes in private deals will often get a premium. “Buyers don’t haggle at that point. If it’s a senator, you’re not going to go back and say, ‘Actually, I’ll give you 1.7.’ They either pay the price or don’t buy it.”
A third agent said it seemed slightly above market. A fourth said the expected range for that property at the time would have been between $1.75 million and $1.785 million, a shade under Perdue’s $1.789 million sale price. A fifth agent said the price Perdue got was squarely at fair market value. All of the agents asked that their names not be used so as not to affect their ability to continue buying and selling homes in the neighborhood.
The agents said that the price Perdue purchased the home for in 2015, $1.6 million, was about market rate at the time. That sale was made on the open market.
In that case, Perdue bought from Bill Cheney, the outgoing president of the trade group lobbying for credit unions; Cheney is currently president of a California-based credit union. Perdue has received donations from the trade group and, as a senator, has helped loosen regulations on credit unions.
One of the real estate agents who spoke with ProPublica noted the short time the home spent on the market before Perdue bought it. The home was put on the market on a Wednesday and Perdue agreed to a deal to buy it that Friday before there could be a weekend open house. The agent said it was atypical for a seller to commit to Perdue without holding an open house to find backup options.
Cheney and his wife told ProPublica they had an open house for brokers only before the home was put on the market. Perdue got no special treatment, they said, and they had no direct contact with him.
Perdue’s spokesperson said the senator bought the townhouse above asking price.
“Absolutely nothing about the purchase or sale of the property had anything to do with the senator’s official role, since they did not know the buyers or sellers, there could be no conflict of interest whatsoever,” the spokesperson said.
Michigan state Rep. Cynthia Johnson. (photo: KIVI)
Michigan GOP Sidelines Democrat for Her 'Unacceptable' Response to Lynching Threats
Rich Pluta, NPR
Pluta writes: "Michigan state Rep. Cynthia Johnson, a Black Democratic lawmaker who faced lynching threats and harassment following an Oversight Committee hearing last week where she leveled fierce criticism against President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, has been punished by House Republican leaders for a video she posted to Facebook on Tuesday."
Johnson has been stripped of her committee assignments, including her position on the House Oversight Committee.
In the short but rambling three-minute and 10-second Facebook post, it's not clear exactly what Johnson means when she issues her "warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly." She also says, "And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay."
Johnson posted a second video later.
In a statement, Republican leaders called Johnson's comments "unacceptable and un-American." Republicans also said they are looking into further action as investigations are ongoing. The statement continued: "We have been consistent in our position on this – violence and intimidation is never appropriate in politics. We have said that about threats against Gov. [Gretchen] Whitmer, Secretary [Jocelyn] Benson, Rep. Johnson herself, and others. That applies to threats made toward public officials, and it must also apply when the threats come from public officials."
Johnson could not be reached for comment regarding the loss of her committee assignments or a threat of sanctions in the coming House term.
House Democratic Leader Christine Greig and Democratic Leader-elect Donna Lasinski also issued a joint statement: "There is no doubt that this election cycle has been rife with hyper-partisan political rhetoric, theatrics, and dangerous threats of violence toward elected and public officials and their loved ones, which continue to escalate amid the most significant public health crisis in our state and country."
But they said the action against Johnson will only increase tensions:
"The overheated language of the statement issued by [House] Speaker [Lee] Chatfield and Speaker-elect [Jason] Wentworth, illustrates that the Republicans prioritize partisan politics and political theater over healing the wounds of division, preserving the well-being of the Legislature as an institution, protecting the safety of members, and acting on the needs of the people of Michigan."
The House is expected to adjourn for the year at the end of this week. Johnson will return for her second term when the Legislature's new session begins in January.
An oil and gas refinery. (photo: Kanenori/Pixabay/The Wilderness Society)
Richard Lachmann, Michael Schwartz and Kevin A. Young | A Tipping Point for the Defeat of Fossil Fuels? How to Stop Big Energy in Its Tracks (Quite Literally)
Richard Lachmann, Michael Schwartz and Kevin A. Young, TomDispatch
Excerpt: "As Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin, the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse."
“Pristine” is (or was) the word that usually went with any descriptions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a coastal plain in northeast Alaska that's represented the rarest of all things these days: wilderness all the way (and not to the bank either). No more. Not, at least, if that eternal promoter of a fossil-fuelized future, Donald Trump, has anything to say about it. His administration is now rushing to auction off leases to parts of that refuge to oil companies just before Joe Biden can take office. This latest hurried move by the world’s greatest pyromaniac and his administration should surprise no one, not from a crew which has already overturned more than 100 environmental regulations of every sort (particularly those that put limitations on oil, gas, and coal companies).
Leave aside for a moment the fact that all of this is sure to be challenged in court by environmental groups and by the Biden administration on coming into office, because there’s another possibility that may come up first and, given our history, it couldn't be odder. It's possible that no major oil companies will actually turn up to bid on that coastal plain filled with migrating caribou and other animals. As NPR News put the matter recently: “It's an open question how much interest there will be. For one thing, the coronavirus pandemic and an oil price war have both hit the oil industry hard. Prices are still low, and it's expensive and difficult to explore for oil in the Arctic, says Mark Myers, a geologist and former natural resources commissioner in Alaska.”
And count on something else, as with so many other controversial oil and natural gas projects in these (increasingly dis-) United States, any energy companies that do turn up for that auction will almost certainly face opposition and active resistance (and not just in court either). That, as Richard Lachmann, Kevin Young, and former TomDispatch regular Michael Schwartz point out today, has been the history of big (and controversial) energy projects in this country (and Canada) in recent years -- and thank god for that!
-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
s Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin, the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse. Those initiatives have included a campaign to jump-start oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the long-delayed Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota; and a push by utility companies to obtain funding and permits for the construction of 235 gas-fired power plants, each with a 30-year life expectancy.
In response, horrified progressives have sought to pressure the president-elect to appoint officials committed to blocking these and other similar projects. But the strategy of pressuring leading Democrats hasn’t worked particularly well for environmentalists in the past and doesn’t seem to be working now. Despite the movement’s full-court press for a real environmentalist presence in the administration, Biden designated Congressman Cedric Richmond as his “liaison” with that very movement. Richmond voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and, among Democrats in the House, he was the fifth-largest recipient of fossil-fuel cash.
Fortunately, a more promising strategy for defeating new fossil-fuel projects has been quietly bearing fruit, even in the Trump era. Climate and Indigenous organizers have been attacking Big Energy companies and their investors, using economic pressure, boycotts, lawsuits, and disruptive direct-action tactics to impede drilling, interrupt the transportation of oil and gas, and choke off the flow of financing to, and insurance for, such projects. This multipronged strategy has been so surprisingly successful that the companies themselves -- especially their sources of funding -- have begun divesting from fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure. As our desperately overheated planet continues setting records, understanding the largely unnoticed success of recent resistance movements is crucial if we hope to prevent total ecological collapse.
Why the Fossil-Fuel Industry Is Vulnerable, But the End of Fossil Fuels Isn't Inevitable
The fossil-fuel industry and its champions in Congress recently complained that financial institutions were “discriminating against America’s energy sector.” Specifically, banks were “folding to activist environmental groups’ pressure” by adopting “policies against investing in new oil and gas operations.” Trump’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) responded by trying to force Wall Street to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge and undertake other new fossil-fuel initiatives.
Why have the banks suddenly become so unwilling to invest in a longtime favorite sector of theirs? One reason is that easy-to-access fossil fuels are getting scarcer. In this era of “extreme” energy, companies have found themselves investing striking amounts of Wall Street capital (and wreaking environmental devastation) to find, extract, and transport hydrocarbon deposits from deep oceans, the Arctic, oil sands, and shale. At a time when oil prices were reliably above $80 per barrel, such projects were enormously profitable. But the fracking boom of the Obama years burst that bubble, with oil prices dropping as low as $40 per barrel by 2015 and remaining well under $80 during the first three years of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources (especially wind) were growing cheaper by the month and siphoning off investment capital, further reducing the demand for carbon-based power.
The global spread of Covid-19 tanked energy demand, turning the drop in oil prices into a nosedive. The pandemic itself, the economic lockdowns, the lack of travel that went with them, and a Saudi-Russian price war drove oil to a calamitous low of $19 per barrel in April 2020. The result was widespread bankruptcies among shale producers and weakening viability among major banks saddled with $300 billion in shaky hydrocarbon loans. To prevent further losses, those banks started to withhold funding for new projects, while oil companies wrote down the value of their reserves, implicitly acknowledging that many of them may never be extracted. A number of experts are now predicting that the “fracking revolution” has entered a period of terminal decline.
This potentially dire situation helps explain the latest Trump initiatives. In order to lock in the next generation of major fossil-fuel projects, the industry’s partisans must convince the major oil companies to borrow and invest the many billions of dollars needed to complete them. They must also convince or coerce increasingly reluctant banks to fund the projects and induce insurers to underwrite ventures that are enormously risky.
This is a daunting but not impossible undertaking. The history of capitalism is strewn with the carcasses of major industries that fell into terminal crisis and were overtaken by new competitors. When it came to manufacturing, water power was replaced by electric power, just as fossil-fueled transportation replaced horses. But history is also littered with industries that somehow survived the challenge of apparently superior substitutes. The nuclear power industry, for instance, has survived despite its monumental costs, poor performance, and the environmental catastrophes associated with it. The reason: the U.S. government invested vast resources in it, forced other institutions to do the same, and suppressed political and economic resistance to it.
The same thing could happen with fossil fuels. The major carbon corporations wield so much power and remain so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy that they can call on governments for subsidies to keep them afloat, no matter the economic (let alone environmental) irrationality of continued fossil-fuel production. Trump’s gambit in the Arctic Refuge, like his entire energy policy, has been anchored by attempts to increase such subsidies and so prolong the fossil-fuel era. The industry giants are also using the current crisis to acquire bankrupt competitors at low prices and consolidate production into a ruling oligopoly. The survivors could emerge even more powerful and so potentially even more capable of demanding handouts from the public.
Why Fossil Fuels Might Be Defeated
Ironically, the Trump administration’s latest initiatives on behalf of fossil fuels also reveal how the industry can be defeated. Because investors are increasingly reluctant to fund troubled extraction and infrastructure projects, the industry has enlisted the U.S. government to force them to do so. The Arctic Refuge, a pristine wilderness area in Alaska where the Trump administration’s OCC and the industry have, absurdly enough, invoked anti-discrimination law (alleging discrimination against both fossil-fuel producers and Indigenous Alaskans) to try to compel the banks to invest, is the most obvious case of this.
Their desperation reflects just how effective the resistance to fossil-fuel projects has been in recent years. All across the U.S. and Canada, climate and Indigenous organizers have successfully raised the level of risk attached to such investments. The industry is highly vulnerable to delays in both drilling and the construction of the transportation infrastructure necessary to deliver oil and gas. Delays raise production costs, while creating long-term uncertainty about the competitiveness of fossil fuels. Green resistance movements have created a credible threat of chronic delays to and interruptions of such projects, leading major lenders to begin shifting from reluctance-to-invest to outright refusal.
The OCC’s efforts to strong-arm lenders are based on its recent finding “that some of the nation’s largest banks had stopped doing business altogether with one or more major energy industry categories.” As Alaskan lawmakers put it grimly, the banks were increasingly “folding to activist environmental groups’ pressure.”
Why has that pressure worked? By obstructing drilling and the construction of infrastructure (especially pipelines and power plants), the green movement has added to the industry’s operating costs in increasingly bad times, while leaving investors fearing the risks now associated with those projects. In this way, it's won victories, even in a moment when the Trump administration was aggressively promoting fossil fuels, when a far-right majority controlled the Supreme Court, and when most congressional Democrats were sitting on their hands.
The movement has applied four mutually reinforcing strategies that, together, have often succeeded in blocking or at least delaying such projects and, in doing so, have rendered them ever less viable.
First, resistance groups mounted disruptive protests at extraction sites and along the routes of proposed oil and natural gas pipelines. Actions against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access (DAPL) pipelines, led by Indigenous communities seeking to protect their lands from devastation, have been the most visible examples of this. In addition to forcing months of delays in construction, these on-site protests inspired a broader movement against fossil fuels and gave added impetus to demands for regulators, judges, and politicians to intervene.
Second, the movement targeted regulators in an effort to prevent or postpone the issuing of permits for the projects. Even during the Obama era, federal regulators had mostly acted as “rubber stamps” for new fossil fuel projects. But the Standing Rock Sioux campaign against DAPL successfully pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to announce a new environmental review of the pipeline, delaying it until Trump took office.
Third, the movement has filed lawsuits based on industry violations of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. Such suits often challenged the validity of permits already issued, which slowed down industry operations and provided the movement with an alternative choke point when regulators and politicians proved unresponsive.
Finally, it targeted the “money pipeline,” pressuring banks, insurers, and other large institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Initially, this strategy was largely symbolic, but no longer. It's now adding to the financial difficulties of Big Energy. Shell Oil Company, for instance, recently labeled the divestment movement a “material risk.” In the case of the Arctic Refuge, the movement’s pressure on Wall Street has made big loans harder to obtain and also led investment firms to put pressure on insurance companies to steer clear of projects there.
This four-pronged strategy has yielded many victories and now poses a credible threat to future fossil-fuel projects. In July 2020, for instance, the business media announced a cascade of ominous news affecting four important pipelines:
- A federal judge ruled that the DAPL permit was in violation of NEPA and ordered a time-consuming full environmental review. Though the pipeline had been successfully built in North Dakota despite much resistance, it is now at risk of being permanently closed anyway.
- An Indigenous landowners’ lawsuit arguing that a second North Dakota pipeline, Marathon Oil’s Tesoro High Plains line, illegally trespassed on their territory led the Bureau of Indian Affairs to order its closing after 67 years of operation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Montana district court judge that had stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
- Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled their Atlantic Coast pipeline project “after years of delays and ballooning costs.”
In response to that last cancellation, Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette complained that “the obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.” His attitude reflected a growing exasperation among industry leaders who have recently decried the “rising tide of protests, litigation, and vandalism” against pipelines and warned that the movement is reaching a new “level of intensity” with “more opponents” who are “better organized.”
Indeed, the resistance has increased pessimism among industry executives and their investors. According to Bloomberg News, typically a gauge of Wall Street sentiments, the core big energy companies are ever more often concluding that “the mega-projects of the past are no longer feasible in the face of unprecedented opposition to fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them.”
A Tipping Point?
The July decisions on the two North Dakota pipelines were especially significant since they threatened already operating projects. As one former pipeline executive put it, this meant that even projects that successfully weathered a storm of protests and secured the necessary permits to operate remained vulnerable and might be shuttered long before repaying their immense debts. With that prospect, “I think it’s going to be incredibly difficult for anybody to invest in any kind of [fossil-fuel] infrastructure.” Echoing his view, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum warned that the DAPL ruling might be “a tipping point, which actually could really cripple production in North Dakota.”
Even if the industry ultimately wins some of its current battles, it might not be able to keep investors on board. The prospect that some future judicial decision could imperil their existing investments deprives them of “certainty from the government,” as one industry lobbying group warned in March. This threat is compounded by the prospect that, in the Biden years to come, other parts of the government may finally begin taking action to stop climate destruction, which could leave fossil-fuel assets "stranded."
If the green movement can continue to disrupt the certainty that investing in oil fields and pipelines will return big profits, count on this: capitalists will begin to desert fossil fuels big time. Billionaire investment strategist Jeremy Grantham predicts a tipping point in the near future. He expects that investors will respond to the mounting threats to the fossil-fuel industry “very slowly” for a while and then "all at once." The point of resistance, then, is to increase the delays, closures, and disruptions that make fossil fuels a risky investment, therefore ensuring that the “all at once” tipping point arrives before humanity crosses the threshold of irreversible catastrophe.
What does all this mean for the current movement to win a Green New Deal? Electing pro-GND candidates has helped place it on the legislative agenda, but the movement must avoid the trap of investing all its energy and resources in electoral campaigns and lobbying. The Democratic Party leadership, including President-elect Biden, has mocked the Green New Deal and committed itself instead to a dangerous “all of the above” energy policy that includes plenty of oil, gas, and nuclear power. Even if Democrats were to win a Senate majority from the two January run-off elections in Georgia, Green New Deal legislation would remain a hard lift at best.
The environmental movement can, however, still move this country closer to a Green New Deal through the very same strategy that brought it victories during the Obama and Trump eras. By obstructing fossil-fuel projects at every turn, it can deprive the industry of the Wall Street investments it needs and lead private investors to view renewables, ever cheaper to produce, as a safer option. The government itself will be forced to invest in renewables in order to meet society’s energy needs and provide jobs to replace those lost when fossil-fuel projects are blocked, as the climate movement has long demanded. Direct resistance to fossil fuels is the shortest and surest path to a renewable energy transition. When you make the building of more pipelines and gas-powered plants so much harder, you also make the Green New Deal and a livable planet so much more possible.
Richard Lachmann is professor of sociology at the State University of New York, Albany, and author of First-Class Passengers on a Sinking Ship: Elite Politics and the Decline of Great Powers (Verso, 2020). Michael Schwartz is distinguished teaching professor of sociology (emeritus) at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Kevin Young is associate professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schwartz and Young are the co-authors, with Tarun Banerjee, of Levers of Power: How the 1% Rules and What the 99% Can Do About It (Verso, 2020).
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Fentanyl pills being made in Mexico. 'I know my pill is very powerful and that it will create dependence. And that's what I want.' (photo: Forbidden Stories)
Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel Has Created a Global Network to Rule the Fentanyl Trade
Audrey Travère and Jules Giraudat, Guardian UK
Excerpt: "Carlos is a Mexican businessman employed by an import-export company that specializes in the trade of tequila and agricultural and chemical products."
Drugs bust in India sheds light on how adaptable cartels have come to dominate the lucrative trade in the powerful synthetic opioid
.... But in January 2016, he was a long way from his home in Culiacán, capital of Sinaloa state.
Two associates accompanied him as he travelled from Shanghai to Hong Kong, Japan, and finally, India.
There, they met Manu Gupta, a businessman active in a variety of sectors: chemical and pharmaceutical industries, agri-food products, sand, and even machinery.
Two years later, allegations were made about another aspect of Gupta’s business interests. On 25 September 2018 he was arrested in the city of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, along with a Mexican associate and an Indian chemist. The three men were wearing masks and gloves – and were in possession of more than 10kg of fentanyl — an ultra-potent synthetic opioid.
Gupta and his associates are accused of planning to ship the fentanyl to Mexico on a commercial flight, hidden in a suitcase. The three men are currently awaiting trial in India. All three have denied the allegations.
Analysis of social media posts and publicly available company information suggests that Carlos (not his real name) appears to match the profile of a man described in a 2019 DEA report as an independent dealer in precursor chemicals.
That report – obtained by the international hacking group Anonymous and released in the “BlueLeaks” document dump in June – says the unnamed man from Sinaloa was dispatched to “purchase additional large quantities of fentanyl precursor chemicals directly from China” on behalf of the cartel. Carlos did not respond to the Cartel Project’s requests for an interview.
The case sheds light on the international networks which Mexican cartels have built up – and the business methods they employ to dominate the lucrative fentanyl market.
As murderous as they are, Mexico’s crime organizations use the same strategies as any other business: the seek to maximize profit, they outsource to specialists – and they adapt constantly to reflect changing international regulations.
A dominant force
Despite the imprisonment of its most notorious leader, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, the Sinaloa cartel remains a dominant force in the drug trade. The October 2019 DEA report describes the group as “a prominent producer and trafficker of Mexico-based fentanyl into the United States”.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid analgesic like morphine, but cheaper, and 50 to 100 times more potent.
Fentanyl increasingly displaced heroin on the underground market, causing record numbers of overdoses around the world. In 2018, fentanyl and similar synthetic drugs accounted for nearly half of the 67,367 drug overdose deaths in the US. This year, overdoses have rocketed during the coronavirus pandemic, with more than 40 US states reporting an increase in drug mortality rates – particularly from synthetic opioids like fentanyl, according to the American Medical Association.
Not so long ago, the mountains of Sinaloa and Guerrero states were a patchwork of small plantations, where subsistence farmers eked out a living by cultivating marijuana and opium poppies. Now, however, those crops are being replaced by clandestine laboratories churning out shipments of synthetic drugs.
At one such lab – little more than a few tables amid scrubby woodland near the state capital, Culiacán – a cartel chemist and his assistant were working on a new batch of pills. Both men wore white overalls and respirator masks. The chemist, a burly man with a master’s degree in biochemical engineering described the industry’s transformation, as the pair worked at an outside table.
“Fentanyl brings in more profits. You only need one pill per person. So if we transport 10,000 pills, then it’s 10,000 people who are going to take them,” he said.
Stirring a white powder with a plastic spatula, he said: “I know my pill is very powerful and that it will create dependence. And that’s what I want. When a consumer takes one and then needs another dose.”
Fentanyl is extraordinarily profitable to produce: where opium poppies require acres of land and months of care, this highly powerful drug requires only a minimal workforce and infrastructure. A 2019 DEA report estimated that each fentanyl pill costs only $1 to produce. It can be resold in the US for at least 10 times as much.
New opportunities
Until very recently, most of the fentanyl sold in the US came from China, but that changed with stricter international regulations in 2017, and a Chinese crackdown in 2019. Shipping fentanyl directly became riskier, but China remains the main producer of the precursor chemical.
Meanwhile, the cartels saw a new opportunity to enter into the market as intermediaries.
With its well-established network, the Sinaloa cartel already had a solid infrastructure to expand into synthetic drugs. A DEA memo released through “BlueLeaks” described a highly organized circuit that included warehouses at the border and distributors across the United States.
“The profit margins they get out of it is by synthesizing plus refining the product into its consumable form,” explained Falko Ernst, senior Mexico analyst at International Crisis Group in Mexico.
And despite the cartels’ popular image as vertically integrated organizations, they often turn to independent networks to outsource logistics or money laundering.
“Cartels’ brand names fade away eventually. [But] all of those [other] networks stay in place because they’re much less visible. They’re much more clandestine in their operations. They don’t go public and they’re much more shielded from the volatility of the market,” said Ernst.
Back on the other side of the globe, Chinese manufacturers of precursors adopt similar strategies to avoid getting caught. And as Beijing tightens regulations, some criminal networks are relocating parts of their business to countries with less strict monitoring, notably Vietnam and India.
‘Things have just changed so dramatically’
In theory, sales of precursors are highly regulated: the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) maintains a “Red List” of substances subject to restrictions.
But there are almost endless possibilities to circumvent these controls by tinkering with chemical compounds to produce new substances which fall outside the current rules.
To combat this phenomenon, the INCB also maintains the international special surveillance list of non-scheduled substances, ISSL, to monitor products that are not necessarily controlled substances but are frequently used illegally.
This regulation system is flawed, however: the INCB – a non-binding entity – relies on the goodwill of companies and inspections by authorities which works better in theory than in practice. In reality, the extent of the problem is revealed with a simple Google search.
Entering keywords for fentanyl precursors quickly leads you to the social network Pinterest, where – nestled between wedding moodboards and home decor inspiration – are posts from Chinese companies offering fentanyl precursors for export— many directed towards Mexico.
At the top of the page is “4-AP”, a substance on the ISSL list that recently became a controlled substance in the US. According to the DEA, 4-AP only has one purpose: to produce fentanyl.
Under the cover of a false Mexican identity, the Cartel Project contacted three companies, all of which offered our undercover reporters substances known to be used in the opioid synthesis.
One company offered multiple substances similar to 4-AP that were still available for sale. The vendor proposed using a “special line” to ship it to Mexico.
“We bought off some people at the Mexican customs, we trusted them very much, and they helped with all our shipments to Mexico. So you don’t have to worry about customs,” the vendor wrote.
In another conversation, the vendor explained that one of their “big” clients in Mexico used cargo planes to deliver precursors. “When the goods arrived in Mexico, he would use his own connections to pick up the goods.”
Bryce Pardo, a researcher at the Rand Corporation who specializes in drug policy, said modern legislation was simply out of step with today’s narcotics market.
“Our drug control laws are based on a very old system where everything is based on the UN single convention from 1961. These were really focused on three plants: cannabis, coca and poppy. Things have just changed so dramatically in the last 10, 15 years, ever since China really got online with its pharmaceutical sector – to the point where we just cannot keep up.”
Presidents Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan greet people during a military parade to mark the Nagorno-Karabakh victory, in Baku, Azerbaijan, December 10, 2020. (photo: Murat Cetinmuhurdar/Presidential Press Office/Handout Reuters)
Amnesty International: Decapitation and War Crimes in Gruesome Nagorno-Karabakh Videos Must Be Urgently Investigated
Amnesty International
Excerpt: "Both Azerbaijani and Armenian forces committed war crimes during recent fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, Amnesty International said, after verifying videos showing the decapitation of captives and the desecration of the corpses of opposing forces."
Amnesty International analysed 22 videos that depict extrajudicial executions, the mistreatment of prisoners of war and other captives, and desecration of the dead bodies of enemy soldiers.
Two videos show extrajudicial executions by decapitation by Azerbaijani military members, while another video shows the cutting of an Azerbaijani border guard’s throat that led to his death.
The videos were shared on private Telegram accounts and groups within the last three weeks. Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab used digital verification techniques to confirm the authenticity of the videos.
“During the recent Nagorno-Karabakh fighting, members of the military on both sides have behaved horrendously, displaying a complete disregard for the rules of war,” said Denis Krivosheev, Amnesty International’s Research Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia
“The depravity and lack of humanity captured in these videos shows the deliberate intention to cause ultimate harm and humiliation to victims, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.
“Both Azerbaijani and Armenian authorities must immediately conduct independent, impartial investigations and identify all those responsible. The perpetrators - as well as any commanding officers who ordered, allowed or condoned these crimes - must be brought to justice.”
Amnesty International’s investigation has authenticated the footage as genuine, and technical tests conducted on the videos indicate that the files have not been manipulated. The details of the injuries were also independently verified by an external forensic pathologist.
Decapitation and mutilation by Azerbaijani military
One video from the first incident shows a group of men in Azerbaijani military uniforms holding down a struggling man, while another soldier decapitates him with a knife. The executioner is identifiable as an Azerbaijani soldier based upon the type of camouflage of his uniform, the Azerbaijani flag on his shoulder and a patch with his blood type listed on his sleeve, as is standard among Azerbaijani soldiers. The victim is shirtless, and is wearing only his underwear and trousers. After the decapitation, the crowd claps and cheers loudly.
In the second video of the first incident, the victim’s head has been placed on the nearby carcass of a pig. The men speak in Azerbaijani, and the camera’s microphone captures them addressing the victim with comments such as, “You have no honour, this is how we take revenge for the blood of our martyrs” and, "This is how we get revenge - by cutting heads”. Sources have confirmed to Amnesty International that the victim was an Armenian civilian.
A video from the second incident shows two men wearing uniforms consistent with the Azerbaijani military, including a clear Azerbaijani flag on one man’s right shoulder and a ‘cutaway’ helmet that is normally reserved for special operations forces. The victim is an older man in civilian clothes, who is pinned to the ground. He is filmed begging for mercy, repeatedly saying: “For the sake of Allah, I beg you.”
While the man speaks in Azerbaijani, he does not have an Azerbaijani accent. Amnesty International believes he was most likely an Armenian resident of Nagorno-Karabakh. One of the men is heard to say, “Take this one” and hands a knife over to the other man, who begins to brutally cut the older man’s throat before the video abruptly ends.
Wilful killing of Azerbaijani border guard
In the third incident, the video shows a man wearing an Azerbaijani border patrol uniform lying on the ground, whilst gagged and bound. The person filming the video speaks to the man in Armenian, then approaches him and sticks a knife into his throat.
The captive man was reported by Azerbaijani media as having been killed in the incident, and named as Ismail Irapov. He does not die while the video is being filmed, but independent pathological analysis confirmed that the wound sustained would have led to his death in minutes.
Outrages upon personal dignity and inhuman treatment
Eleven other videos show violations by Armenian forces, and seven by Azerbaijani forces. In several videos, Armenian soldiers are seen cutting the ear off a dead Azerbaijani soldier, dragging a dead Azerbaijani soldier across the ground by a rope tied around his feet, and standing on the corpse of a dead Azerbaijani soldier. In other videos, Azerbaijani soldiers kick and beat bound and blindfolded Armenian prisoners, and force them to make statements opposing their government.
International humanitarian law expressly prohibits acts of violence against any detained person, including prisoners of war, the mutilation of dead bodies, and the filming of confessions or denunciations for propaganda purposes.
The third Geneva Convention states that “prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated … In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation … Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and committing outrages upon personal dignity - in particular humiliating or degrading treatment and desecration of the dead - are war crimes.
Background
On 27 September, heavy fighting erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia and Armenian-supported forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In the months that followed, both sides involved in the conflict exchanged artillery and rocket fire.
Amnesty International called on all sides to the conflict to fully respect international humanitarian law, and to protect civilians from the effects of the hostilities. The fighting concluded with the signing of the Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement on 9 November.
Plastic bottles makes up almost one sixth of the world's annual plastic production. (photo: Jeff Morgan/Alamy)
550 Groups Urge Biden to Become #PlasticFreePresident With 8 Executive Actions
#PlasticFreePresident
Excerpt: "Plastic is causing serious environmental problems at every step of its lifecycle. President Biden can tackle this crisis with the stroke of a pen."
The world faces an indisputable plastic pollution crisis. More than 99% of plastic is created from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, including an oversupply of fracked gas, which is spurring a global boom in new plastic production. That plastic is causing serious environmental problems at every step of its lifecycle. President Biden can tackle this crisis with the stroke of a pen.
lastic production fuels the climate crisis with increased greenhouse gas emissions and damages local communities where plastic is made with toxic air and water pollution. Plastic is also a threat to human health: As we increasingly consume more and more of our food and drinks from single-use plastic wrappers and containers, we're exposed to chemicals linked to many of the known public health crises of our time, including obesity, ADD/ADHD, and many forms of cancer.
Once discarded, plastic clogs our rivers and oceans, harms wildlife, infiltrates our drinking water, and persists in the environment for centuries. Half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years, and annual plastic pollution into rivers, lakes and oceans could surpass 50 million tons within the next 10 years unless significant policy changes are made. Banning bags and straws are important first steps taken by state and local governments, but we need bold new federal policies to address the plastic pollution crisis.
And despite false and misleading claims by the makers of plastics, we cannot recycle our way out of this problem. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. plastic recycling rate is an anemic 8%. Instead, more than 90% of plastics in the United States is buried, burned or released into the environment.
The solution to plastic pollution is simple: Reduce the amount of unnecessary plastic produced.
We can transform our extractive, throwaway economy to a regenerative, inclusive one that's good for our environment and creates American jobs. We need to stop plastic contamination at its source before it enters the marketplace, while improving our waste-management systems, developing new business models, phasing out the worst plastic offenders, and shifting to reusable non-plastic alternatives. The federal government needs to be a catalyst for innovation.
There is time to make this transition, but the question remains: How can we make this large-scale transition quickly enough?
President Biden can take the following eight key steps without any action from Congress. These actions will immediately set the nation on a pathway to a plastic pollution-free future while longer-term measures that require action at all levels of government and society develop.
Each of the actions described requires the president to prioritize support for communities that historically have been harmed "first and worst" by the petrochemical industrial sector and the waste it creates: communities of color, Indigenous communities, and impoverished communities. Moreover, these actions will provide an opportunity to drive job growth in a new green economy providing unionized jobs with family-sustaining wages in communities that need them the most. Workers in the petrochemical sector and related industries will find their jobs fundamentally transformed, but not abandoned, in an economy and workforce that is inclusive, fair, and just for all people.
In 2021, we will urge President Biden to take these actions in the first year in office, in addition to the ten steps proposed by #ClimatePresident. The actions called for in #ClimatePresident, such as keeping fossil fuels in the ground by ending fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters and banning fracking, are inextricably linked to #PlasticFreePresident. Acting together, these plans will lead to a safer, healthier, and more equitable world for everyone.
8 PRIORITY PLASTIC ACTIONS PRESIDENT BIDEN CAN TAKE WITHOUT CONGRESS
1. Use the purchasing power of the federal government to eliminate single-use plastic items and replace them with reusable products.
The federal government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the United States, spending more than $450 billion on products and services each year. That means the government is likely the country's largest consumer of disposable plastic products. By altering its product specifications to give preference to reusable products, the federal government could both significantly reduce the amount of plastics going to landfill and incinerators each year and spur demand for alternatives to single-use plastic products.
- Appoint a Plastic Pollution Czar to coordinate plastic reduction efforts amongst federal agencies and internationally.
- Direct the head of each federal agency to ensure that it does not purchase single-use plastic products, or allow them to be sold on federal property, with limited exemptions. Require each agency to submit a plan within the first six months of the administration detailing what it will do to eliminate single-use plastic products.
- Issue an Executive Order immediately prohibiting all federal agencies and federal contractors from purchasing or selling single-use plastic water bottles in national parks or other federal facilities.
- Direct the EPA to update its Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program to clarify agencies must not acquire single-use plastics.
- Work with federal agencies to develop and implement a strategy to phase out single-use plastic products across the federal government. The new strategy should have numerical goals, timelines to achieve them and sufficient funding for any new capital costs, such as installing dishwashing equipment, water fountains, and other improvements.
- In any new stimulus or other spending bills, include funding for projects that reduce the use of plastic by the federal government and other federally funded projects or entities.
2. Suspend and deny permits for new or expanded plastic production facilities, associated infrastructure projects, and exports.
In the next 10 years, the petrochemical industry plans to increase plastics production by at least 35%, with more than 300 new projects slated for the United States alone. Using cheap fracked gas, the new and expanded facilities planned by the industry produce raw material for an endless deluge of throwaway plastic, approximately 40% of which is discarded within minutes. This dirty industry disproportionately fouls the air and water of poor communities and communities of color.
- Urge all federal agencies to use all existing legal authorities to deny permits for new plastics production and infrastructure projects, including but not limited to refineries, ethane crackers, propane dehydrogenation facilities, polymerization facilities, pipelines, gasification and pyrolysis facilities, natural gas liquid storage facilities and hubs, fraction-ation facilities, import and export terminals, and facilities that repolymerize plastic polymers into chemical feedstocks for use in new products or as fuel.
- Support a bill that bans fracking and bans new petrochemical infrastructure.
- Direct all federal agencies to use their full existing legal authority to object in writing to any new permit issued to plastics production and infrastructure projects by a State delegated authority under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or any other relevant federal statute.
- Halt the export of gas liquids, monomers, and polymers used for plastic production to the fullest extent allowed under federal law.
- Use the president's authority under the National Emergencies Act to reinstate the crude oil export ban.
3. Make corporate polluters pay and reject false solutions.
Plastic producers must be held accountable for the plastic pollution they have created. Voluntary measures like Operation Clean Sweep, small scale financial contributions like the industry-backed Alliance to End Plastic Waste, and the plastics industry's promotion of "chemical recycling" and "waste to energy" are all dangerous distractions from the massive, global plastic pollution problem we need to face. We need to place the responsibility where it belongs: on the industry that generates the waste.
- Support the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which, among other things, would make plastic product manufacturers accountable for wasteful products and phase out unnecessary single-use plastic products.
- Ensure that stimulus or other bills supported by the administration do not fund industry's false solutions that exacerbate the plastic pollution crisis, such as chemical recycling, waste-to-fuel, waste-to-energy, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc, which are harmful to human health and the environment and violate the principles of environmental justice. Veto any section of spending bills that fund the false solutions listed above.
- Direct the Attorney General to investigate all violations of law by plastic producers, transporters, and molders/formers impacting the environment and prosecute them to the maximum extent of the law for the damages they have caused.
- Direct the Federal Trade Commission, in its "Green Guide" on environmental marketing claims, to prohibit companies from falsely claiming their plastic products are recyclable.
- Direct the EPA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to set minimum recycled content standards for beverage containers and other items.
- Impose tariffs on the import of single-use plastics, with exemptions for medical and personal protective equipment and accessibility options for persons with disabilities.
- Establish a moratorium on the construction of any new garbage incinerators and direct each state to develop a schedule to close existing municipal incinerators and develop a plan to close and remediate all incinerator ash landfills.
- Direct the EPA to develop new data collection methodologies to accurately report waste reduction, recycling, and composting rates throughout the United States. Require consistent reporting from local and state governments and the private sector.
- Direct the Department of Commerce to establish a new office on Recycling Market Development and Waste Reduction Innovation.
4. Advance environmental justice in petrochemical corridors.
Petrochemical companies continue to locate new and expanded plastics facilities near existing fossil fuel infrastructure, which means they are targeting the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, the Ohio River Valley, and other communities that already shoulder a heavy burden of oil, gas, and plastic industry pollution. Across the United States, these facilities are often located in and have a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority neighborhoods.
- Direct all federal agencies to ensure that communities of color, Indigenous communities, and low-income communities have access to public information and opportunities for meaningful public participation in all petrochemical permitting decisions.
- Direct EPA to promulgate regulations requiring continuous emissions and fenceline monitoring of pollutants for all plastics facilities, accurate and continuous recordkeeping, as well as the provision of records to the public.
- Direct EPA to conduct cumulative risk assessments to human health in all petrochemical and disposal industry permitting decisions, and as part of any National Environmental Policy Act processes.
- Develop measures that will increase clean and green long-term economic investment in communities, workers and economies.
- Direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish a petrochemical displacement fund to enable families facing immediate health risk to access funds to assist with relocation.
- Direct federal agencies to strengthen their relationship with Indian tribes, and ensure tribes are actively involved in the consultation process for all proposals affecting tribal lands and other properties that attach traditional religious and cultural significance.
- Direct the Department of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and the Attorney General to commence a study for mitigation and payment of damages to those deliberately and disproportionately exposed to and harmed by industrial facilities that produce petrochemicals and plastics.
- Direct the Attorney General to investigate the linkages between petrochemical corridors and human trafficking, sexual violence, and the incidence of murdered and missing Indigenous women.
5. Update existing federal regulations to curtail pollution from plastics facilities by using best available science and technology.
The EPA has the authority and obligation to ensure that our nation's air, waterways, wildlife, and communities are not polluted by emissions and discharges from industrial facilities. To meet its obligations, it is tasked with developing and implementing pollution standards that reflect the best available technology and changing nature of the industries it regulates. Nevertheless, the agency continues to rely on decades-old standards when permitting plastics facilities and infrastructure, putting public health and the environment in harm's way.
- Direct EPA to update its Clean Air Act new source performance standards (NSPS) regulations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations that apply to plastics facilities and require they use only zero-emissions energy sources; direct EPA to initiate a rulemaking to designate ethane and methane as volatile organic compounds.
- Direct EPA to update its decades-old Clean Water Act regulations for plastics facilities to reflect the best available technology for conventional, non-conventional, and toxic pollut-ants from new and modified sources and establish a zero plastic standard for wastewater and stormwater discharges. Direct EPA to update Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for new and expanded facilities to eliminate the discharge of toxic priority pollutants from wastewater and stormwater streams.
- Direct EPA to promulgate regulations to prevent the discharge of plastic from other entities that transport, make, and package plastic materials.
- Direct EPA to initiate rulemakings under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to (1) consider listing plastic as hazardous waste due to its public health and environmental harms, which would result in waste reduction measures, recordkeeping in transit, and strict criteria for disposal and export; (2) ensure proper disposal of plastic hazardous waste that does not include incineration; and (3) require the inclusion of best management practices for the disposal of plastics in state and regional solid waste plans.
- Direct EPA to conduct risk evaluations of plastics and update its Toxic Substances Control Act regulations to regulate plastics that pose an unreasonable risk to public health or the environment, and for those plastics (1) prohibit production of single-use products, except as necessary to supply medical and personal protective equipment, and accessibility options for persons with disabilities; (2) require manufacturers to track and ensure proper disposal or recycling of those plastics; and (3) require zero discharge of plastic pellets and powders in the generation, storage, and transportation of those plastics.
- Direct EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct a study and report on the environmental, public health, and environmental justice impacts of the plastic industry and its planned expansion, including the production, entire supply chain, end uses, disposal fate, and lifecycle impacts of plastic products. The study and report must also assess the best available technologies and practices that reduce or eliminate the environmental justice and pollution impacts of plastics facilities and associated infrastructure. These will inform EPA's revision of environmental regulations to mitigate these impacts.
- Direct the Food and Drug Administration to fund a nationwide study on the presence of microplastics in water and food products, including fish, fruits, and vegetables.
- Direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to fund a nationwide study on the presence of plastics in the human body and to determine how the presence of plastics in human blood and organs is affecting human health.
6. Stop subsidizing plastics producers.
For too long, the United States has subsidized the fossil fuel industry. It's time to stop the flow of financing to the petrochemical industry and the oil and gas industry that supplies its feedstocks.
- Direct the Department of Energy to end all loan and guarantee financing programs that increase plastics production, from extraction, pipelines, storage to manufacturing and export.
- Direct all federal agencies to ensure that polluters who enter into settlement agreements in connection with their violations of laws and regulations are not able to deduct the payments from their taxes.
- Direct the Department of Commerce to include alternatives to plastics as a cornerstone of its next Strategic Plan, including mechanisms for shifting federal financing and other support from the petrochemical industry to financing for alternatives to plastics, including reusable products as well as sustainable waste reduction and management technologies.
- Direct the EPA to enforce financial assurance obligations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Remediation Act (Superfund) for oil refining and chemical manufacturing industries to ensure that companies are not self-bonded and are fully funding closure costs.
- Direct the Department of Commerce to advocate globally for the selection of U.S. suppliers of plastic alternatives in foreign government procurement opportunities, to provide assistance to green investors that want to do business in and with the United States, and to produce other opportunities to promote plastics solutions that reduce impacts to public health and the environment.
7. Join international efforts to address the global plastic pollution crisis through new and strengthened multilateral agreements.
For many years, the U.S. government has hindered the work of a growing number of countries to enact new and strengthen existing global governance structures to address the plastic pollution crisis. It is time for the U.S. to become a proactive partner with key allies to address the global plastic crisis by targeting production, consumption, and disposal.
- End the objection process to block the incorporation of the updated Basel Plastic Amendment into the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Decision Annexes.
- Work with Congress to ratify the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and finalize implementing legislation for the Convention and Basel Ban.
- End the export of plastic wastes (including for "recycling") to non-OECD countries.
- Publicly acknowledge the full life cycle impacts of plastic pollution and microplastics on human health and marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and the need for new global governance to address those harms.
- Negotiate in good faith a new legally-binding convention on plastic pollution that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, building on and complementing existing regional and global frameworks while addressing key gaps around global objectives, market restrictions, and a just and safe circular economy for plastics.
- Negotiate in good faith a new legally-binding treaty to eliminate fossil fuel extraction, which provides the raw material of 99% of plastics.
- Convene a Major Economies Forum on Plastics to bring together the countries most responsible for consumption of plastic that ultimately ends up as waste, as well as the United Nations, to spur cooperative action to combat the plastics crisis.
8. Reduce and mitigate the impacts of discarded and lost fishing gear.
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, including gillnets and fishing traps/pots causes ecological and economic harms. This fishing gear is often called "ghost gear" because long after it is lost it entangles, captures, and kills sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, and fish. It changes the marine environment, poses navigational hazards, introduces plastic into the marine food web, and creates a persistent marine debris and pollution problem, with high cleanup costs.
- Direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop regulations for reducing litter and the environmental impacts of U.S. commercial and recreational fishing gear that is lost or abandoned. These regulations must include (1) reporting, labeling, traceability, and monitoring measures and (2) measures to eliminate or substantially reduce the impacts of lost and abandoned fishing gear on wildlife, including gear retrieval projects.
- Commit to working with NOAA, the states, and Congress to complete a plan and allocate new federal funding to eliminate abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear from U.S. vessels and in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
- Revise the NOAA "Fishing for Energy" program that collects derelict fishing gear at 31 ports in 9 states, which recycles a limited amount of metal and sends the rest of the collected material to garbage incinerators. The incinerator element of this program should be eliminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.