RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Brazil Seeks to Hold Bolsonaro Accountable for More Than 400,000 COVID-19 Deaths Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54023"><span class="small">Andrew Fishman, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 May 2021 11:58

Excerpt: "A new commission is investigating Jair Bolsonaro's response to the pandemic - and political foes are gathering strength."

Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro. (photo: Andre Borges/NurPhoto/Getty Images)
Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro. (photo: Andre Borges/NurPhoto/Getty Images)


Brazil Seeks to Hold Bolsonaro Accountable for More Than 400,000 COVID-19 Deaths

By Andrew Fishman, The Intercept

02 May 21


A new commission is investigating Jair Bolsonaro’s response to the pandemic — and political foes are gathering strength.

void accountability, attract attention through outrage, win reelection. This has been the holy trinity of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s decadeslong career in politics. Over the past year, the 66-year-old far-right extremist reached new heights of producing outrage, but the other pillars of his strategy appear to be faltering. Brazil’s Covid-19 crisis remains one of the worst in the world, and a brutal economic depression has forced millions into poverty. Opinion polls are for the first time consistently showing that a majority of Brazilians now disapprove of Bolsonaro.

So far, Bolsonaro has proven adept at coopting public institutions, and avoiding accountability, through threats, promises, backroom negotiations, or placing loyalists into official positions. But when Brazil’s Senate launched a new inquiry into Bolsonaro’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the president’s allies were unable to block it. The panel convened for the first time on Tuesday, and members expect the investigation to produce impeachable evidence of his malfeasance.

The commission appears ready for a serious probe into the the coronavirus response in Brazil. “It is a true health, economic, and political tragedy, and the main responsibility lies with the president,” said Sen. Humberto Costa, an opposition member of the commission. Costa, who is also a former health minister, told The Intercept that he believes there is enough evidence to conclude that Bolsonaro committed “crimes against humanity,” a label that other analysts have also used.

With October 2022’s presidential elections already looming, things could get worse for a man who has now spent years as an indomitable force in Brazilian politics. Bolsonaro never had to go head-to-head with Brazil’s most popular politician, former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was barred from running in 2018 but is once again eligible and is gaining momentum.

As Brazil moves closer to election season, anything is possible. The president’s future will depend on his ability to maintain his tenuous alliances and the appearance of electability. He may finally be held accountable, either in Congress or at the polls, for his dismal handling of the country’s response to Covid-19 — which as of Thursday had killed over 400,000 Brazilians.

Fair-Weather Oligarchs

Every Brazilian president since the end of the military dictatorship in 1985, regardless of ideology, has relied on the support of the “Centrão” parties in Congress. Literally, the word means “the big center,” but it more accurately describes a loose political bloc that represents the interests of Brazil’s oligarchs. The Centrão plays kingmaker and king-slayer alike; the parties’ support provides the votes necessary for passing legislation and has also been at the center of every impeachment in Brazil’s modern history. Winning over the bloc means delivering on pork-barrel spending, doling out influential political appointments, and, above all else, protecting the oligarchs’ economic interests.

Bolsonaro, who came to power on an anti-corruption platform, railed against the Centrão’s influence and promised not to play its game. But when the coalition of far-right extremists that rode his populist coattails into power collapsed due to infighting, Bolsonaro was forced into bed with the Centrão.

Ensuring the bloc’s support in recent legislative leadership elections came at a huge cost: billions of dollars in pork-barrel amendments to the budget that forced considerable cuts to development, health, and education spending. Shifting the money left little reserves for dealing with pressing needs, unforeseen circumstances, and future crises. The arrangement, though, could bring a big payoff for Bolsonaro, putting members of Congress in his corner to block or subvert potential impeachment proceedings or other inquiries. Bolsonaro’s congressional support and loyalist appointees have already thwarted progress on the multiple corruption scandals involving the president and his family.

So far, the Centrão’s support has also meant that Bolsonaro’s handling of the pandemic hasn’t faced a real challenge in Congress. But with scandals mounting, that could change. The bloc’s loyalty can be fickle, and new, constitutionally mandated spending limits mean that Bolsonaro’s options to purchase its fealty will be extremely constrained this year. And if Bolsonaro’s political prospects become too dim ahead of the 2022 elections, no price will be enough, and the Centrão will abandon him in search of the next winning ticket. Some of loose bloc’s constituent political parties already have.

Congressional Investigation

Congressional leadership allied with Bolsonaro blocked congressional hearings into the government’s handling of the pandemic for over a year, ignoring overwhelming evidence of its catastrophic consequences. Despite having enough signatures, the Senate commission that began on Tuesday only moved forward after a decision by the Supreme Court forced the issue. Bolsonaro was reportedly furious at the decision and openly lashed out against the justice responsible for ruling.

The Brazilian media has already uncovered a slew of scandals related to the government’s handling of the pandemic, which will provide the panel with much to look into. Additional investigative powers promise to provide even more public evidence of Bolsonaro’s mishandling of the crisis. A detailed study of the government’s Covid-19 response by the University of São Paulo and the human rights group Conectas found that the Bolsonaro administration implemented an “institutional strategy to propagate the virus” — something the authors said was “intentional.”

Many influential voices, including Supreme Court Minister Gilmar Mendes, have referred to the government’s actions as “genocide” since early in the crisis. This month, the Brazilian Bar Association argued that Bolsonaro is committing “crimes against humanity.” A similar case was submitted to the International Criminal Court last July by a coalition of groups representing over 1 million medical professionals. The Senate panel will review the evidence that led experts to draw these conclusions and has subpoena power to call witnesses and uncover official documents.

Bolsonaro has done just about everything in his power to help the coronavirus kill as many Brazilians as possible. As president, he has forcefully discouraged mask use; rejected offers from vaccine manufacturers; fought against lockdowns; held back federal funds to fight the virus; actively promoted ineffective treatments with dangerous side effects; and slashed funding for science and health. When backed into a corner, he has repeatedly suggested that he could use the military to impose martial law — or even undertake a coup d’ètat if pushed too far.

“The commission’s role is to illuminate all dark areas in the fight against the pandemic,” said Sen. Renan Calheiros on Tuesday, after being voted in as the commission’s rapporteur. The specter of the commission, Calheiros said, “has already accelerated a series of administrative measures in the last few days that had been frozen.”

Brazil, which is lagging behind in vaccinations, has suffered over 400,000 coronavirus-related deaths, one of the highest tolls in the world, and has become an international pariah, as well as a prime breeding ground for new variants of the disease. The collapse of health care systems and overflowing cemeteries have made global headlines and spread the devastation across South America. Disentangling the whos, whats, and whys will be no easy task, especially as the president’s allies will work to stymie the investigation at every turn.

Of particular interest will be revealing why Brazil ignored or rejected initial offers to procure millions of doses of vaccines on at least 11 separate occasions, as well as how much of Brazil’s failure to combat the disease has been due to deliberate policy or administrative incompetence and ideological delusion.

Costa, the senator, believes that Bolsonaro deliberately acted to spread the virus. “The government decided that the best way to overcome the pandemic was to allow as many people as possible to be contaminated and thereby generate what is called ‘natural immunity from infection,’ without considering the damage this would cause,” Costa said. He also attributed some decisions to “the crude, intellectually limited vision of Bolsonaro and his government” mixed with far-right ideological beliefs. Costa believes that the panel will conclude that impeachable offenses were committed by Bolsonaro but is skeptical that it will result in impeachment. “With the support of the Centrão that he has today, he has the numbers to block impeachment.”

Poverty and Hunger

Since the early days of the pandemic, Bolsonaro publicly justified his rejection of lockdowns and other protective measures against Covid-19 by citing the importance of keeping the economy moving. He resisted direct cash assistance payments to keep government spending down and encouraged the nation to live their lives as usual. The president himself made regular maskless appearances at supermarkets and public gatherings to set an example.

While other world leaders who took similarly cavalier approaches simultaneously pursued vaccines and pivoted when global evidence proved that safety versus economy was a false dichotomy, Bolsonaro has failed to adapt to the facts.

Unsurprisingly, the Brazilian economy faltered. The official unemployment rate is now a record 14.2 percent and in reality is likely much higher. The Brazilian real was the world’s third-worst performing currency last year, as foreign investment fled the country and industries ground to a halt. New data suggests that 11 million Brazilians have crossed the line into extreme poverty since the pandemic began, a 45 percent increase, while the nation simultaneously minted 10 new billionaires. In an effort to hide the true extent of the economic carnage, the government recently cut 98 percent of the funding for the national census scheduled for this year, which could be cancelled as a result.

Last month, over 1,500 business leaders and economists signed an open letter to Bolsonaro imploring him to take effective measures to contain the coronavirus, including social spending, more than a year after the pandemic began. The letter, though, does not directly criticize Bolsonaro: As Alexander Busch noted in a column in Deutsche Welle Brasil, 40 percent of the economy depends on public spending, and business leaders are generally hesitant to publicly cross swords with the president holding the purse strings.

Meanwhile, many of Brazil’s most influential captains of industry still see opportunity in the current crisis and are eager to lend Bolsonaro their public support. Last month, top figures from Brazil’s banking businesses and an influential industry association applauded Bolsonaro and top officials as they sipped Dom Pérignon together at a private dinner. The business leaders promised to continue to support the embattled president if he would push forward with more promised neoliberal economic reforms under Economy Minister Paulo Guedes, a former bank executive and a past adviser to Chilean right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Despite their ideological affinity for Bolsonaro, these titans of industry experienced the nation’s greatest years of economic growth during the Lula presidency, which pursued a more inclusive economic path to growth. Lula is actively pursuing business leaders, who are likely growing nostalgic for the golden years, as are average citizens. Bolsonaro has seen majority disapproval in multiple public opinion polls for the first time in his presidency. Lula, by comparison, is again Brazil’s most popular presidential hopeful.

If Brazil’s institutions fail to extract any form of accountability from Bolsonaro, it will likely be up to Lula to save the nation from Bolsonaro through the ballot box. The former president was the frontrunner in the 2018 election but made ineligible by corruption convictions that were recently annulled by the Supreme Court, restoring his political rights. In recent weeks, Lula has been making his case for a third presidential term by promising a radically different vision on the economy and Covid-19 and by promising a return to reason and normalcy to a nation that is tired and beaten down by more than two years of Bolsonaro.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Michael Cohen: Rudy Giuliani Will "Absolutely" Rat Out Ivanka, Don Jr., and Trump to Save Himself Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 May 2021 08:36

Levin writes: "Ask Rudy Giuliani, or his son, Andrew, if the former mayor of New York City is in legal trouble at the moment, and you'll undoubtedly get an eye-bulging, hands-flailing response that Donald Trump's personal attorney has done nothing wrong in his life and that the only person who should be worried about his legal exposure is Hunter Biden."

Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Al Drago/Getty Images)
Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Al Drago/Getty Images)


Michael Cohen: Rudy Giuliani Will "Absolutely" Rat Out Ivanka, Don Jr., and Trump to Save Himself

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

02 May 21


According to his ex-lawyer, Donald Trump should be very, very afraid.

sk Rudy Giuliani, or his son, Andrew, if the former mayor of New York City is in legal trouble at the moment, and you’ll undoubtedly get an eye-bulging, hands-flailing response that Donald Trump’s personal attorney has done nothing wrong in his life and that the only person who should be worried about his legal exposure is Hunter Biden. Obviously, that is not true at all given that (1) Giuliani’s multiyear quest to dig up dirt on the president‘s son uncovered nothing, and (2) experts say Rudy is very much in trouble. Calling Wednesday‘s raid on Giuliani‘s apartment and office an “extremely significant” escalation of the federal investigation into his Ukraine dealings, former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara said this week that there is a strong chance the former New York City mayor will be charged. At that point, prison could be in his future.

All of which makes Michael Cohen, who was once in a very similar situation, think Giuliani is “absolutely” going to turn on Trump to save himself. Appearing on CNN on Thursday, the ex-president’s former “fixer,” who was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion and campaign-finance violations, predicted that Rudy is sweating profusely at the moment, and despite whatever he and his son claim, knows that he’s in trouble. Why? For starters, he ran the Southern District of New York, which is currently investigating him, from 1983 to 1989 and knows what kind of power it holds. “There’s no doubt that he’s nervous…. And it’s rightfully so that he’s nervous, because he knows the power of the SDNY is unlimited, and they use that power,” Cohen told Alisyn Camerota. Noting that Giuliani likely “has no interest in going to prison and spending the golden years of his life behind bars,” Cohen said, “Do I think Rudy will give up Donald in a heartbeat? Absolutely. He certainly doesn’t want to follow my path down into a 36-month sentence.”

Which, of course, would be an unfortunate turn of events for the ex-president who is already facing all kinds of legal trouble, not to mention potentially bad news for his children. “What’s ironic here,” Cohen told Camerota, “is the fact that these tactics of the Southern District of New York, in terms of bullying you into a plea deal, were created by Rudy Giuliani going back 30 years ago. And it’s just ironic that the tactics that he created for that office are now going to be employed against him, in terms of making him plead guilty and, certainly, at the least, turning over information about Jared, Ivanka, about Don Jr., about Donald himself, about all of these individuals in that garbage can orbit of Donald Trump.” He added that one cannot even imagine the trove of shadiness the Feds may uncover as a result of seizing Giuliani’s electronic devices:

Who knows what Rudy was involved with. What we’re going to find out is, there are text messages, there are emails, there are different types of communication apps that the FBI knows how to reestablish, even if Rudy, who I don’t think is technological, tried to—tried to delete or what have you…. And what happens is, they may be starting the investigation looking at things like the Ukrainian conversations between himself, Lev Parnas, and others [and then] you may end up finding that Jared Kushner was involved or Don Jr. or a host of other individuals in Trump’s orbit. And what happens then is that the Southern District, they end up expanding the probe….

We have no idea how expansive that this investigation is going to ultimately reveal itself, because Rudy’s an idiot. And that’s the problem. Rudy drinks too much. Rudy behaves in such an erratic manner that, who knows what's on those telephones or what’s on his computers?

Asked if he thinks Donald Trump is scared about what may come out of the Rudy situation, Cohen said there was no question the ex-president is currently soiling himself. “He was afraid even when they raided my home and my law office,” Cohen said. “Because Donald Trump cares about only one person, and I say it all the time. He cares about only himself. So, he doesn’t care that they raided Rudy’s home. He doesn’t care that they raided Rudy’s law office. What is it going to do to affect me, is all that he’s thinking right now. What did stupid Rudy do? What did stupid Rudy write? What sort of text messages or emails? What sort of stupid things was Rudy up to that’s now going to implicate me? Because Donald knows he has enough trouble right now between Tish James and the attorney general’s office, as well as Cy Vance and the district attorney’s office here in New York…. He knows that he has all sorts of legal issues. He didn’t need more. That’s one thing I can assure you. He definitely didn’t need more. And Rudy is going to be, you know, a treasure trove. In all fairness, Merrick Garland is like Santa Claus, and Rudy’s devices are going to be like the presents that are waiting for you on Christmas day…. And what do I think? I think Rudy knows that he has trouble. I think Donald understands that Rudy will provide whatever information that he has to the SDNY.“

Asked if he thought his dad would, indeed, throw Trump under the bus to save himself, Andrew Giuliani gave a…not entirely convincing answer before changing the subject to—you guessed it—Hunter Biden.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Cleaning Up What Can't Plug In Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59297"><span class="small">Peter Fairley, Grist and Investigate West</span></a>   
Sunday, 02 May 2021 08:29

Fairley writes: "It gets the job done just like petroleum diesel, yet generates far less air pollution. That's not just a quality of life benefit. It means Titan's drivers are breathing less toxic fumes and soot, and bringing less of that pollution home."

Frank Lemos manages regional operations for shipping firm Titan Freight Systems, but still dons a uniform sometimes to move a truck between terminals or train a driver. (photo: Leah Nash/Grist)
Frank Lemos manages regional operations for shipping firm Titan Freight Systems, but still dons a uniform sometimes to move a truck between terminals or train a driver. (photo: Leah Nash/Grist)


Cleaning Up What Can't Plug In

By Peter Fairley, Grist and Investigate West

02 May 21


Cascadia needs cleaner fuels to start decarbonizing heavy vehicles and industry. That means pushing biofuels to the max, and more.

hese days Frank Lemos manages a shipping operation, but the former truck driver still gets behind the wheel occasionally to train new drivers or to fill a staffing hole. When he does, he notices a big difference. The firm recently moved away from conventional diesel fuel, and without it there’s something missing: the permeating petroleum smell that drivers wear after a day inside a big rig.

“You come home and you don’t get to just jump in bed if you’re tired. You have to take a shower, or else someone’s going to kick you out of bed,” said Lemos, who is operations manager for Portland-based Titan Freight Systems.

Since last fall Titan’s rigs, which deliver pallet-loads of goods between Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Idaho, have mostly fueled up with renewable diesel, a biofuel made by refining vegetable oils, livestock tallow, and cooking grease instead of crude oil.

It gets the job done just like petroleum diesel, yet generates far less air pollution. That’s not just a quality of life benefit. It means Titan’s drivers are breathing less toxic fumes and soot, and bringing less of that pollution home.

Lemos isn’t the only who’s noticed. Robert Bennett, Titan’s maintenance supervisor, said his wife quickly realized that she no longer needed to segregate his work clothes when she does the laundry. “There is definitely a big difference,” Bennett said.

Renewable diesel also yields far less of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases driving climate change. That’s what inspired Titan’s shift.

The firm switched to renewable diesel one year ago, amid the region’s increasingly destructive wildfire seasons. Last year, a fire devastated the town of Phoenix, Oregon, just five miles from one of the firm’s terminals. “Doing nothing is not a course of action,” was how Titan president and owner Keith Wilson described his visceral response to the fires.

Wilson knew that climate change was stoking Cascadia’s fires, and that diesel vehicles produce over a third of Oregon’s transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Using biofuel cut Titan’s petroleum diesel consumption by 93 percent and cut its carbon footprint by over two-thirds.

Switching wasn’t a sacrifice. Wilson is getting renewable diesel at the same price. And the cleaner burn cuts maintenance costs, so he figures he’s actually saving about 2 cents a mile — over $20,000 a year.

Titan’s move is part of a Pacific coast wave driven by clean fuels standards enacted in California, Oregon, and British Columbia. Their mandates and fees provide a $1 to $2 per gallon subsidy to renewable diesel and other low-carbon fuels, and their production is multiplying as fleets seek them out.

Washington state looks set to be next. After several failed attempts, the state’s House and Senate both approved a comparable program this spring, and were reconciling their bills at InvestigateWest’s press time.

To decarbonize, as climate science calls for, Cascadia will need an even stronger clean fuels push.

Recent research guiding Cascadia’s policymakers and industries finds that switching to battery-powered vehicles is the cheapest long-term solution to eliminate use of fossil fuels by 2050. Electrification can do it all for cars, energy planners say, edging out all but a fraction of conventional car sales within a decade.

However, electrification of fuel-thirsty heavy vehicles could take decades longer, and Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia need to significantly trim carbon emissions by 2030. For those near-term carbon cuts, cleaner fuels — and lots of them — will be crucial.

Washington has mandated a 45 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. To get there, it needs to both electrify vehicles as rapidly as possible and meet over a third of the remaining fuel demand with low-carbon alternatives to petroleum, according to recent research for the state. That translates to over 1.7 billion gallons of clean fuels in 2030.

Energy experts call that a staggering volume.

“The scale is huge,” said John Holladay, who directs biofuels research at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. “It’s a very aggressive scenario.”

Cascadia’s clean fuels need dwarfs what’s now commercially available. Meeting the challenge means rapidly scaling up biofuels like renewable diesel and then doing more, because there simply is not enough plant- and animal-based material to support the volume required, say experts such as Holladay.

Making up the difference will require new fuels that are just beginning to take off — fuels such as hydrogen and low-carbon “synthetic” fuels. Governments and industries in Europe and Asia are beginning to push these next-generation fuels into their markets, while the U.S. and Canada lag behind.

Producing low-carbon fuels presents an opportunity for the region’s refineries, several of which have already begun to retool to make them. And energy experts say producing them locally will improve the reliability of Cascadia’s energy system.

But can clean fuels production ramp up as fast as the region’s climate action ambition demands?

On the road to electric trucks

Electrifying vehicles, homes, and industries is the cheapest way to provide the bulk of the greenhouse gas reductions required by 2050. Cars will shift quickly, thus cutting gasoline demand. Manufacturers such as General Motors have vowed to stop producing gasoline-fueled vehicles by 2035 or earlier, and the Washington Legislature just passed a 2030 target date for that transition.

But heavier vehicles such as buses, trucks, ferries, and planes are harder to electrify. Production of battery-powered heavy vehicles remains limited, and the early models cost more and often carry less than conventional vehicles. Then there’s the need to build charging stations, which a report this month from the Environmental Defense Fund called “the greatest challenge of electrifying heavy-duty trucks.”

Wilson has extensively researched electric trucks, and hopes to introduce one to Titan’s fleet this year to learn more. But he figures it could take 20 years to turn over his diesel-fueled fleet. “Is it a short-term solution? My answer was no,” said Wilson.

Electrifying even beefier vehicles will take longer. Vancouver, B.C.-based Harbour Air vows to start operating its first electric seaplane in just a year or two. But even Harbour Air bets that it will be “decades” before battery-powered jumbo jets are crossing the continent.

“It’s still an emerging technology,” said Tyler Bennett, who manages decarbonization projects for Portland-area transit authority TriMet, which operates over 700 diesel buses.

Bennett said electric buses cost close to twice as much as diesel models and have shorter range. The first five buses TriMet acquired were mostly out of service last year, thanks to software and charging glitches.

So TriMet continues to add new diesel buses faster than it adds electrics. TriMet plans to cease purchasing diesel buses after 2025. Nevertheless, given the rate that equipment turns over — after 16 years of service for TriMet’s buses — Bennett expects diesels to still make up more than half of the fleet in 2030.

Which is why TriMet, like Titan, set its sights on switching to renewable diesel. Or, to be precise, “R99”: renewable diesel with 1 percent petroleum diesel added to help lubricate engines and to nab a $1 per gallon federal tax credit for fuel blends.

Bennett said tests on 32 TriMet buses in 2019 confirmed that using R99 cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent. It also cut air pollution. That especially benefits lower-income and Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color historically targeted for transportation corridors and therefore exposed to more diesel pollution. (Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality has estimated that diesel pollution kills about 460 Oregonians every year.)

And unlike earlier biofuels, using renewable diesel doesn’t require engine modifications. As Bennett puts it: “You pick up the phone and the company drops off R99 instead of diesel that day and you’re good to go.”

A renewable diesel price spike in 2019 prompted some early adopters to temporarily use more petroleum diesel. And that higher cost prompted TriMet to scuttle a long-term R99 purchase contract that was in the works last March when the pandemic struck. The transit operator tells InvestigateWest that it’s still assessing when it will make the switch, citing COVID-19’s “major impact on our finances.”

Renewable boom and limits

Growing experience of fleet owners — and the Pacific Coast’s clean fuel standards — have biofuels production ramping up. Renewable diesel dominates that growth. Production capacity under construction will roughly quintuple output in the U.S., and many more are in the works, according to a recent biofuels industry survey.

Much of the action is at oil refineries, including several in Cascadia, that are retooling to refine renewable feedstocks. In 2018, BP began mixing a little livestock tallow and vegetable oil into crude at its Blaine, Washington, refinery to make a lower-carbon diesel that’s 5 percent renewable — blending that could scale up and spread to Washington’s four other refineries if Governor Jay Inslee signs a clean fuels bill this year as expected.

Calgary-based Parkland Fuel already blends in renewable feedstocks on a larger scale at its Vancouver-area refinery, where it expects to process over 600,000 barrels of tallow and canola oil this year — enough to make Parkland’s diesel up to 15 percent renewable.

Canada’s Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure, meanwhile, is among a growing number of refiners gearing up to produce pure renewable diesel. By 2023, a Canadian $215 million to $235 million ($171 million to $187 million U.S.) expansion underway at its Prince George, British Columbia, refinery should be turning 3,000 barrels of renewable feedstocks per day into renewable diesel.

Dedicated “biorefineries” are also multiplying. A $1.5 billion-plus plant proposed for Columbia County, Oregon, not far from Portland, would turn up to 50,000 barrels per day of waste oils and fats into more than 500 million gallons per year of renewable diesel. Its proponent, NEXT Renewable Fuels, has applied to be exempted from siting approval under a state law incentivizing low-carbon biofuels.

The question is how many refineries can be sustainably supplied with oils and fats. “The amount we need is not consistent with the amount that’s available,” according to Holladay.

So, where to turn? As the supply of waste fats taps out, biofuels producers will rely more heavily on vegetable oils. That may drive up food prices and reduce the climate benefit.

Making fuel from waste fats provides a double benefit by preventing those wastes from simply decomposing, a process that releases the potent climate pollutant methane. In contrast, turning to harvested plant oils could drive consumption of palm oil, whose rising production has led to rainforest destruction in countries such as Indonesia. Clearing forests for palm plantations undercuts climate benefits.

Operators such as NEXT Renewable Fuels have explicitly sworn off using “virgin” palm oil. But tracking the palm oil supply chain is difficult.

To hydrogen and beyond

Experts project that meeting clean fuels demand in 2030 will take clean fuels producers into new technologies and ingredients that are on the cusp of commercial production today.

One potential source of future fuels are abundant biomass materials such as wheat chaff and other agricultural leftovers, sludge from sewage treatment plants, and small trees from thinned-out forests. Biomass can be converted to methane gas and compressed to fuel vehicles. Alternatively, superheated water and catalysts — materials that accelerate chemical reactions — can turn biomass into an oily mix known as “biocrude” that refineries can take on.

Holladay and collaborators at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Washington State University are working to demonstrate the feasibility of the biocrude fuels chain. They are making biocrude from a blend of sources including wastewater sludge from Detroit and food wastes from a prison and an army base in Washington state.

Last month, they reported continuous conversion of biocrude to renewable diesel for over 2,000 hours with no damage to the particularly pricey catalysts that refineries employ.

The PNNL-WSU research could play a small role in the set of next-generation clean fuels endorsed by Washington state’s 2021 energy strategy: hydrogen gas made with renewable power, and liquid fuels produced by reacting that “green” hydrogen with a range of materials.

Cascadia’s first green hydrogen project broke ground in March at the Douglas County Public Utility District in central Washington. The plant will use hydropower generated at the utility’s Columbia River dam to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen.

Such hydrogen can replace natural gas and coal that fuel industries, or be used to propel electric vehicles that get their power from fuel cells instead of batteries. Fuel cells are electrochemical devices comparable to Douglas PUD’s hydrogen plant, but running in reverse to combine hydrogen and oxygen and thus generate electricity.

Toyota, which along with Hyundai and Honda already sells fuel cell vehicles in California and British Columbia, is teaming up with Douglas PUD to open a market in Washington by building the state’s first hydrogen fueling station near Centralia.

Douglas PUD expects to get an extra boost from its hydrogen production: flexibly adjusting the plant’s operation to keep the power supply and demand in balance. (See Using hydrogen to back up the grid)

Another way to use hydrogen to beat climate change is to produce low-carbon liquid fuels. Those include diesel for use in heavy vehicles and jet fuel for jet engines. A firm in Quebec is building one of the world’s largest green hydrogen plants, about 17 times bigger than the one at Douglas PUD. It will convert nonrecyclable municipal waste and wood waste into biofuels.

Decarbonization modeling supporting Washington’s new energy strategy found that hydrogen-derived fuels could account for four-fifths of the state’s clean fuels supply in 2030. Projections like that are new for North America, but they are the new normal in Europe and Asia where large renewable hydrogen projects are multiplying.

A Danish renewable energy giant, Ørsted, is laying plans for a hydrogen plant 200 times larger than Douglas PUD’s, to be powered by a dedicated offshore wind farm.

Banning petroleum

Cascadia’s clean fuel standards have started a transition to low-carbon fuels. But those programs are not sufficient to deliver the hydrogen and clean fuels industries needed by 2030.

Big investments promised by the Biden Administration could help. An infrastructure plan unveiled by Biden last month promises $15 billion toward large demonstration projects for emerging energy technologies, including 15 hydrogen projects.

The uncertain cost of hydrogen-based fuel processes means it is hard to predict which fuel pathways will ultimately scale up, according to Jeremy Hargreaves, the energy systems modeler with San Francisco-based Evolved Energy Research who led the recent research for Washington state.

What’s certain, said Hargreaves, is that the hydrogen fuels will cost considerably more than today’s commercial fuels, such as renewable diesel. Which is why electrifying as fast as possible rose to the top of the strategy menu that Hargreaves’ firm evaluated for Washington state, and in similar studies for British Columbia and Oregon. It makes sense to electrify as many cars and trucks as possible before turning to the more-expensive green hydrogen fuels.

Environmentalists worry that expanding clean fuels production will actually undermine that effort, undercutting the early market adoption of electric vehicles.

“You are providing an incentive to continue using fossil-powered trucks and ferries, rather than shifting to electrified equivalents,” said Patrick Mazza, a Seattle-based environmental activist and energy analyst.

Many worry that hydrogen-based fuels could also spur new fossil fuel production. Right now, green hydrogen is pretty expensive. It’s much cheaper for the time being to continue using a climate-unfriendly process using natural gas that is responsible for over 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if some of the carbon emissions could be captured, making more hydrogen from natural gas would spur continued fossil gas drilling and the associated methane leaks.

“You are giving a new market to fracked gas, with all its air and water pollution problems, as well as questionable carbon benefits,” said Mazza.

In contrast, the concern of trucking mini-magnate Wilson at Titan Freight Systems is about ensuring that Cascadia starts getting trucks off petroleum today.

Wilson spent this winter educating fellow carriers and the Oregon Trucking Associations on renewable diesel’s advantages. Then, hot off an unsuccessful 2020 bid for Portland City Commission, Wilson leapt back into politics this year, proposing a state law to phase out petroleum diesel by 2028.

Wilson’s bill got a frosty reception from Oregon Republicans, who have made a habit of fleeing the Oregon State Capitol to block climate legislation. The trucking association raised fears of renewable diesel shortages and price spikes. So Wilson and Democratic State Representative Karin Power, who formally introduced the bill last month, added several safety valves to the bill designed to head off steep price hikes.

Wilson positions his bill as a cost-saving measure that can improve health, grow jobs, and reverse nearly a decade of rising carbon emissions in Oregon. And, he says, those wildfires are costing him customers. “We’re being compromised when we lose entire communities because of fire or smoke in the summer, because people aren’t buying fishing gear,” said Wilson.

Frank Lemos, Titan’s operations manager, says his concern is managing the backlash that’s likely to come from Wilson’s proselytizing for climate action. He wants a cleaner workplace for his drivers, and he accepts that getting off fossil fuels is important for his drivers’ grandkids.

But he also needs to protect his drivers from the inevitable blowback from their industry counterparts, whether it’s chatter on the CB radio or at the truck stops. He expects those conversations to go sideways, with their drivers hearing that costs will rise and Titan will have to cut their wages, or their jobs.

“You don’t want to be thought of as that guy from that company who’s trying to change the way trucking is done,” said Lemos. “Nobody wants to be that scapegoat that makes the difference. But somebody has to be.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Case for Statehood for the District of Columbia Is Clear Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53457"><span class="small">Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun Times</span></a>   
Saturday, 01 May 2021 12:27

Jackson writes: "Last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, a bill that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state of the union. It finally would end the denial of voting representation to its more than 700,000 residents, the majority of whom are Black or Brown."

Jesse Jackson. (photo: Getty Images)
Jesse Jackson. (photo: Getty Images)


The Case for Statehood for the District of Columbia Is Clear

By Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun Times

01 May 21


Making D.C. a state finally would end the denial of voting representation to more than 700,000 Americans, a majority of whom are Black or Brown.

ast week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, a bill that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state of the union. It finally would end the denial of voting representation to its more than 700,000 residents, the majority of whom are Black or Brown.

The bill was passed 216-208, with Democrats voting unanimously and Republicans offering not one vote. That led the media to declare the bill dead on arrival in the Senate, where it could be passed by a majority but derailed by a filibuster that would require 60 votes. Republicans have announced that they are prepared to filibuster the bill and block the majority from passing it.

Once more, legislation guaranteeing basic civil rights is threatened by a minority employing the filibuster, the favored instrument used to block civil rights legislation and sustain segregation for decades. Only this time Republicans, once the party of Lincoln, have taken up the mantle of the plantation Democrats of the Old South.

The case for D.C. statehood is clear. The nation was founded in protest against taxation without representation. D.C. residents are denied voting representation in the House and Senate. The nation is shamed by military service without representation. D.C. residents have fought in wars going back to the Revolutionary War and yet have no representatives to vote in favor or against those wars. America, which claims to lead democracies across the world, denies the foundation of democracy to more than 700,000 citizens in the nation’s capital.

D.C. is not too small to be a state. It has more citizens than Vermont and Wyoming, and about as many as Alaska. Those states, of course, are overwhelmingly white. D.C. would have the largest proportion of African Americans of any state. There are no constitutional obstacles to making D.C. a state. The Constitution calls for Congress to control the seat of government. The new bill defines the seat of government as including Capitol Hill, the White House, the National Mall and connecting property, drawing the state from the remaining areas.

Historically, voting by D.C. residents — even for local officials — has been suppressed because of racism. In the 1870s, at the same time the South was beginning to suppress Black votes and construct what became the American version of apartheid, Southerners in Congress moved to strip District residents of the vote for fear of Blacks. This isn’t disputed.

As segregationist Sen. John Tyler Morgan of Alabama explained in 1890, “In the face of this influx of Negro population from the surrounding States, [Congress] found it necessary to disenfranchise every man in the District of Columbia ... in order thereby to get rid of this load of Negro suffrage that was flooded in upon them. That is the true statement. History cannot be reversed. No man can misunderstand it.”

And racism propels the opposition today. Across the country, Republicans are mobilizing in state after state to make it more difficult to vote in ways that disproportionately impact minority voters. Rather than seeking to win the votes of Black and Brown voters, they choose instead to find ways to impede their ability to vote. Filibustering against D.C. statehood is simply the most extreme expression of this campaign of voter suppression.

Republican legislators toss out all sorts of objections to D.C. statehood — it’s too small, too urban, lacks manufacturing, doesn’t have a landfill. But their real objection is that it is too Black and Brown and likely will elect two Democratic senators and a Democratic member to the House. D.C. residents tend to be more affluent and better educated. You would think that they would be prime targets for Republican appeals. And they would be, except that the residents are disproportionately Black and Brown, and the modern-day Republican Party has made itself into the party of racial division.

The opposition to D.C. is mirrored in the opposition to statehood for Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but, as a territory, have no right to vote. They too pay taxes and serve in the military. Puerto Rico, with 3 million citizens, is even larger than the District. Most Americans support Puerto Rican statehood. But Republicans fear that, since Puerto Ricans are largely people of color, they will tend to elect Democrats. Once more racism stands in the way of democracy.

In 1988 when I ran for president, I called for statehood for the District and for Puerto Rico. I also called for the U.S. to end its support for apartheid in South Africa and demand that Nelson Mandela be freed. Since then, Nelson Mandela was freed and became the leader of his country, leading a peaceful transition from apartheid. Historic change is possible. Yet in the U.S., the citizens of the District and of Puerto Rico remain deprived of representation. And the right to vote is once more under siege across the country.

This summer, the Senate will convene a hearing on D.C. statehood. The White House has strongly issued its support. If Republicans continue to employ the filibuster to block the vote, it is time for Democrats to suspend the filibuster, just as Republicans did to drive confirmation of their Supreme Court nominees to lifetime appointments. The tricks and traps of our segregationist past should no longer stand in the way of simple democracy for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Drug Companies Took None of the Risks to Develop the COVID-19 Vaccine. They're Getting All of the Profits. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59289"><span class="small">Stephen Buranyi and Luke Savage, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 01 May 2021 11:43

Excerpt: "The US public poured billions of dollars into developing a COVID-19 vaccine, yet drug companies are reaping the profits and jealously guarding the intellectual property from poor countries. Let the drug companies cry: we should release the vaccines immediately."

A vaccine. (photo: Artyom Geodakyan/Tass)
A vaccine. (photo: Artyom Geodakyan/Tass)


Drug Companies Took None of the Risks to Develop the COVID-19 Vaccine. They're Getting All of the Profits.

By Stephen Buranyi and Luke Savage, Jacobin

01 May 21


The US public poured billions of dollars into developing a COVID-19 vaccine, yet drug companies are reaping the profits and jealously guarding the intellectual property from poor countries. Let the drug companies cry: we should release the vaccines immediately.

uring the earliest months of the coronavirus pandemic, world leaders and corporate executives alike embraced the rhetoric of social solidarity, often drawing on nostalgic memories of war efforts past and common sacrifice in the face of adversity. That rhetoric, to put it mildly, did not realize itself in the form of policy: the pandemic has disproportionately hit the most vulnerable while billionaires have made a killing.

Despite early suggestions that the knowledge and expertise required for mass production of vaccines would be widely shared, private industry has maintained control thanks to restrictive intellectual property laws designed to protect its profits — the result being a slowed rollout that puts private wealth ahead of human need, even as pharma companies reap the benefits from public subsidies and publicly funded scientific research.

Stephen Buranyi is a science journalist living in London and a former researcher in immunology who has written on vaccine politics and production for the Guardian, the New York Times, and Prospect magazine. Jacobin spoke with Buranyi about the moral and political failure that is the global pandemic response, the history of patent sharing in the fight against disease, and why Bill Gates is always wrong.

LS: Back in December, you wrote a piece for the New York Times on the development of the coronavirus vaccines, which ended up coming a lot sooner than many experts had predicted. They were a pretty significant scientific triumph — akin to other historic advances in research and medicine that we now often associate with particular scientists or labs.

But, as you observed, in this case, “the vaccines against Covid-19 are being written instead as a victory for pharmaceutical companies.” If anything, these words have only gotten truer since you wrote them: a number of Big Pharma companies are now basically household names.

Why, or perhaps how, did the vaccines come to be thought of in relation to the pharmaceutical industry (which has essentially won an unprecedented PR coup)?

SB: To a certain extent, I think they just sort of defaulted to the pharmaceutical industry as the public-facing deliverer. What the industry has done for a really long time is collate the huge amount of work done by academic, publicly funded scientists (and, in recent years, also small biotech companies) and brand it as their own.

In a lot of cases, you almost don’t see pharmaceutical companies doing drug development anymore, and this is something lots of people in the industry would agree with. Certainly, lots of drug development goes on, but the model now involves companies taking on other research or buying it up from a biotech company and then providing the branding, the world reach, the legal protections, and the manufacturing.

LS: It’s somewhat strange, in and of itself, to celebrate particular brands for selling a product. But in this case, pharma companies are also taking a lot of undue credit given the extent of public money involved in developing these vaccines. Can you talk about the public sector’s role in all this and the role of publicly funded research in general?

SB: From a global perspective, tons of studies have broken down the amount of public research that lies behind most pharma products. Most of these analyses find that there’s basically no pharma product that doesn’t contain at least some publicly funded research. This system goes into overdrive when it comes to coronavirus: you have an unprecedented amount of public support — the easiest example here is Operation Warp Speed, the US government initiative to find a vaccine, which alone spent something like $12 billion funding vaccines.

You also have the National Institutes of Health (NIH) signing over patents to Moderna and other companies to allow them to move forward. A lot of the structural information — genetic information in relation to the virus, for example — was carried out by the NIH or academic researchers.

There’s also been a tremendous amount of logistical support to this as well: for Moderna, which is a relatively small company, the NIH actually carried out many of their clinical trials. With Pfizer, you’ve got government agents searching through trains to expedite research materials they need.

So there’s a vast web pharma companies are pulling from, and then when you get to the end of it, the shot is just “Pfizer.” There’s this sense that the government shows up with the money and the support, and then they just sort of take their hands away, and then everything else belongs to industry.

LS: From what I understand, the current intellectual property regime is quite different from what has existed in the past — something that’s very much shaped the global response to COVID-19. How do the current rules compare to those that existed in relation to the major global diseases of the twentieth century, such as smallpox?

SB: This is a really interesting way to get at the problem if you want to talk to people about why we should open up patents for these vaccines or why we should do worldwide production — basically, why we should take on Big Pharma.

You don’t have to understand everything about how complex things like intellectual property regimes or the World Trade Organization (WTO) operate. You can explain it very easily: a private company controls the patents to a pharmaceutical product, and if somebody else or someone in another country tries to make it without their permission, they can take legal action via international trade agreements like those in the WTO. It’s super strict, and it’s very easy for them to extend this legal weapon all the way across the world. In effect, this gives them power over particular intellectual properties worldwide.

Before the WTO came into being in the mid-1990s, enforcement of patents was a lot laxer. One of my favorite examples is that countries like Spain, Italy, and Canada were quite well known for just allowing companies within their borders to make pharmaceutical products. They would then pay a kickback, or rather a license fee, to the pharmaceutical company that held the patent while making a cheaper version domestically. This was totally noncontroversial, and they used to do it for heartburn medication, for ulcer medication in Canada. It wasn’t seen as beyond the pale at all.

And in situations like pandemics — for example, during the quest to eliminate smallpox — you had the World Health Organization (WHO) assume the role of global coordinator, where they would take on information about how to make vaccines. They would collate them, test them, and then send them out across the world to help people get their production up to speed. You had countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Kenya, going from very little production to actually donating state-of-the-art vaccines back to the WHO to give to their neighbors after a few years — and this was all the way back in the 1960s and 1970s. In this case, there was no IP seized, but this kind of sharing was generally seen as a good thing.

During World War II, the US government was trying to make more antibiotics, specifically penicillin, and they made Pfizer give up its recipe. Not only did they share it with all of Pfizer’s competitors and give contracts to manufacturers, but they built factories using Pfizer’s process. This was all done by the War Production Board, which got a special dispensation to suspend antitrust law, which pharma companies weren’t thrilled about (not that it stopped them from making huge profits). I think the really key thing is that nobody thought this was a really big deal. They would look at, say, the need for penicillin during World War II and say, “Well, of course, Pfizer should give it up. Of course, the government can help distribute and produce this stuff.”

That sentiment has very much evaporated since the 1990s, and despite the fact that a different way of coordinating a vaccine response exists within living memory — there are plenty of people alive who worked at these companies or worked in the governments that did these sorts of things — it’s considered beyond the pale that we would allow another country to make a private drug or that we would compel a pharmaceutical company to share its knowledge, even when faced with this enormous crisis. It’s mind-boggling.

LS: Last month, the CEO of AstraZeneca wrote in the Guardian: “The fight against Covid-19 has shown how governments, industry, international institutions and academia can come together to achieve something remarkable” and promised the industry was doing all it could “to make sure people around the world have access to safe, effective Covid-19 vaccines, wherever they live and regardless of income level.”

This narrative — that there’s a general atmosphere of cooperation between government, science, and private industry coordinating on a global level against the virus — is one that I think a lot of us have basically internalized. Maybe that has something to do with all the political rhetoric in the spring of 2020 about civic solidarity, wartime measures, etc. In any case, this kind of cooperation is largely illusory — and people in the Global South especially are suffering as a result of the current patent rules. Can you elaborate a bit about why the current global patent regime privileges wealthier countries that are mostly in the West?

SB: I mean, it privileges them because they wrote the rules! And those rules were written with the expectation that the ability to produce these things would always stay with particular countries, whether it’s high-tech products like software and electronics or drugs. Part of the original way some of these IP laws were written is owed to lobbying from companies like Pfizer — which played a huge role in getting the WTO IP rules written — and these rules were written largely to protect the position that companies like it enjoyed as privileged controllers of these products. So the rules are written to keep certain products within the Western or, you might say, the developed sphere.

Then you come to a situation like this, and there’s not a huge amount of capacity in developing countries because the capacity has basically been kept in the developed world. The rules make it so that it’s been very difficult for other countries to develop capacity. Richer nations get access to these things first, and nobody else is allowed to make their own way with it.

LS: Bill Gates was interviewed on Britain’s Sky News this weekend, and the crux of what he said was that lifting patent restrictions wouldn’t help improve our collective response to the pandemic because the capacity and expertise required to manufacture more vaccines safely — patents being shared or not — just isn’t there.

Your latest piece makes a pretty convincing case that Gates’s comments, which are very much in keeping with the general line taken by pharma companies, are nonsense and that there’s a ton of untapped manufacturing capacity that could be put to use if companies shared their recipes. What’s your response to Gates’s remarks?

SB: If you want to engage in as good faith a way as possible (I don’t want to be too charitable, but for the sake of argument): he’s a huge techno-optimist, and so he’s really pleased that we’ve been able to make these vaccines possible, but in every other respect, he’s basically a huge pessimist. He embodies the centrist cri de coeur that better things are not possible.

So when he says we can’t do things differently, what that means is that, for him, this looks pretty good. The technology came fast, we’re going to make some vaccines now for the rich world, and the poor world will eat after we’re done. He’s unwilling to look at the system as it stands or to ask whether we could do it differently, so he can’t see another way forward. To him, this is the best possible world: we let private companies make these things, their processes are totally secret, their supply chains are totally secret, their capacities are totally secret, etc., but we just trust that they’re doing everything in the most efficient way possible and that’ll take care of everything for the world.

Moving on to the question of supply, I reported on a company in Canada recently — Biolyse in St. Catherines, Ontario — that’s interested in producing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. They think they can make about twenty million doses a year. There’s a company in Bangladesh called Incepta that’s interested in helping as well. Neither has received really any word back from their own governments or the pharmaceutical companies that they’ve approached. So that puts the lie to the idea espoused by Gates that there is absolutely no capacity.

I will say he’s right that there’s not a crazy amount of capacity — on the order of billions of doses — to be had. But those taking up this line are being needlessly, or rather purposely, obtuse about it. Because what people are talking about is not necessarily just searching out a couple of factories with the necessary capabilities. They’re talking about what used to exist in the past, which is a coordinated international effort to build up the capacity from scratch in all of these countries. I mean, China built all of these factories last year to make these super old-school vaccines they developed, absolutely from scratch, and they’re pumping out hundreds of millions of doses a year.

To somebody from industry, that’s anathema, because you’re going to have way too much capacity at the end of this pandemic. It just doesn’t make any sense for them: If you can make a couple hundred million doses, sell them all to the rich world this year, then use the same factories to sell to Africa next year, that’s super-efficient from their perspective, right?

The thing is: If we build a bunch of factories to get rid of this pandemic, and then, after it’s done, they’re not useful anymore, who cares? What price does the world put on ending the pandemic? This stuff ultimately just doesn’t conform to the profit models at the heart of the pharmaceutical industry.

LS: And presumably, the pharmaceutical companies have an immediate financial interest in the supply being somewhat limited because if they exclusively manufacture these things and get to sell them off in piecemeal, that’s much more profitable for them than if they were produced in factories engaged in a global effort.

Would it be too reductive to say that the whole thing ultimately swings on the fundamental divergence between the profits of private industry and the interest of the species as a whole in killing off the pandemic as quickly as possible?

SB: The idea that these companies aren’t working on a purely capitalistic profit model is ridiculous. Of course they are. And you can see by the number of people that are now getting on board with the campaign to expand production, knock down patents, and share know-how that most don’t think this way. When you look at people like Gates or those that run pharmaceutical companies, they really are zealots. They’re hardcore ideologues, and they think that the only way to do things involves turning a profit.

Something that’s quite incredible about this moment, especially over the past couple of weeks, is that we’ve seen more and more people (including former world leaders like Gordon Brown) and all these civil society organizations come out in favor of a real global response. You’re seeing people’s limits with this system. You’re seeing that most people don’t think this way in a crisis and that they’re willing to say, “Profit be damned. We need to end this pandemic.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Next > End >>

Page 125 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN