truthout--2020-11-22--Benefits of Cap and Trade Often Elude Communities Hit Hard by Air Pollution

Growing up in North Richmond , California , Denny Khamphanthong didn ’ t think much of the siren that wailed once a month , every first Wednesday at 11 a.m .
The alarm is a test of the community ’ s emergency warning system , which has alerted residents to numerous incidents over the years at the nearby Chevron oil refinery .
One accident there — a 2012 fire — sent a cloud of black smoke billowing over San Francisco Bay and left thousands of local residents struggling to breathe .
Now , when Khamphanthong explains the sound to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their eyes .
“ I forget that this isn ’ t normal , ” he says .
Nor is the fact that Khamphanthong and most of his childhood friends carried inhalers .
Richmond , a diverse , industrial city where housing prices and incomes have lagged behind its Bay Area neighbors , has poor air quality and some of the highest rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in California .
“ There ’ s a lot of beautiful things that happen out of [ Richmond ] , ” says Khamphanthong , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network whose family emigrated from Laos in the 1980s .
“ But at the same time , when you look at the reality of it , it is sad.
” Pollution , poverty , and race collide in many other disadvantaged communities across California — and the country — and some argue that the state ’ s climate policies haven ’ t helped .
While California has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % since their peak in 2004 , many residents still suffer from high levels of air pollution — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In particular , controversy has dogged California ’ s cap-and-trade policy , which took effect in 2013 and regulates roughly 450 entities accounting for 85 % of California ’ s emissions .
The system works by setting a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases released by refineries , power plants , and other large emitters , and requires polluters to obtain permits to cover their share .
The overall “ cap ” lowers every year , forcing polluters to reduce their emissions or purchase allowances from others who do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of them White — tout cap and trade as a cost-effective way to cut emissions while generating money for other climate initiatives .
But environmental justice activists say the program has not served California ’ s disadvantaged communities , and particularly communities of color , where many facilities operate .
In their eyes , it doesn ’ t do enough to address climate change and allows emitters to continue polluting the air in the meantime .
For example , state records suggest that the Chevron Richmond Refinery , one of California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gases in 2017 and 2018 — the last years for which data are publicly available — than it has since 2008 .
And in several recent years , it emitted as much or more of certain air pollutants .
It has also dramatically increased the volume of gas flared off as waste — another source of harmful compounds .
( Representatives from Chevron said that flaring was related to a new hydrogen plant coming online , and that the refinery has made significant investments in reducing emissions of air pollutants over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cap and trade highlights a contradiction .
“ You ’ re hearing all this great stuff about how amazing your governor and your state is on climate leadership , ” says Lucas Zucker , policy and communications director at the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy .
But “ it doesn ’ t feel like anything is changing.
” As the United States reckons with its long legacy of racial injustice and the increasingly devastating consequences of climate change , questions about the efficacy and fairness of cap and trade have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But seven years on , researchers , regulators , and activists are still arguing about how California ’ s most famous climate policy has affected its most vulnerable residents — and how to do better .
Climate change is usually seen as a global problem .
But its effects are profoundly local , and often refract through long-standing patterns of inequality and racism .
In the U.S. and elsewhere , low-income residents and people of color shoulder an outsized share of the climate burden .
They face greater risks from heat waves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they have suffered collateral damage from the harmful pollutants produced by using fossil fuels .
These pollutants , which include particulate matter , nitrogen and sulfur oxides , and toxic substances like benzene , have been linked to health problems ranging from respiratory disorders to reproductive problems to cancer .
And numerous studies show that polluting facilities and their emissions tend to concentrate in disadvantaged communities .
“ Me and my five cousins , we all have asthma , ” says Abe Francis , 15 , of Sacramento .
When Francis was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they feared he might stop breathing in his sleep .
He still struggles to catch his breath when he plays basketball at the park .
“ It ’ s incredibly scary for me , ” says Francis , who is African American .
According to CalEnviroScreen , the system the state uses to identify at-risk populations , his neighborhood falls in the highest fifth of pollution-affected communities in California .
It ranks in the 94th percentile for poverty and roughly 90 % of residents are people of color .
In Wilmington , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dulce Altamirano says her children and grandchildren suffer from headaches , rashes , nosebleeds , and respiratory problems caused by pollution .
“ The air quality is very bad , ” 45-year-old Altamirano says in Spanish , with a sigh .
“ I personally have many problems with breathing , with my throat .
… There have been times when my husband wanted to call the paramedics.
” The city sits among numerous refineries , oil wells and storage facilities , shipping ports , and high-traffic roads , and some neighborhoods rank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Climate policies present an opportunity to address these issues because greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants often come from the same sources , like industrial smokestacks and vehicle tailpipes .
In fact , when California passed its landmark 2006 climate law — which directed the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 — supporters claimed that it would save thousands of lives through improved air quality alone .
But environmental justice advocates grew concerned that these benefits would not be equally distributed when the California Air Resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of its strategy to implement the law .
CARB turned to cap and trade in part because it had broad support from both environmental groups and industry players , and was already in use by a coalition of East Coast states and the European Union to tackle greenhouse gases .
( In 2014 , Quebec joined California ’ s market and several other states and countries have considered or adopted their own versions in recent years . )
However , community activists worried that the system would allow companies to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disadvantaged neighborhoods .
“ Anytime to you have that kind of pay-to-pollute scheme , the communities that already were being sacrificed — that becomes a business decision , ” Zucker says .
And some evidence suggests that these fears have come true .
A 2018 study led by Lara Cushing , now at the University of California , Los Angeles , found that more than half of the facilities covered under cap and trade actually increased their in-state emissions during the first three years of the program .
These facilities were also more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( In-state emissions were offset by purchasing cleaner power and carbon credits from other projects that reduced emissions elsewhere . )
A 2019 report by the environmental group Food and Water Watch found similar results for the East Coast ’ s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a cap-and-trade program that regulates the power sector .
However , a new analysis by economists at the University of California , Santa Barbara , paints a slightly brighter picture in California .
The researchers used a model to simulate how pollution spreads in the atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like others , they found glaring disparities between disadvantaged communities and their Whiter , more prosperous neighbors .
But while this so-called environmental justice gap increased in the years before cap and trade took effect , it fell by 20 % to 30 % afterwards in the areas where facilities were covered by the program .
The California studies , which took different approaches , do not offer a clear answer about whether cap and trade has helped or harmed disadvantaged communities in the state .
Both had to wrestle with outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Recession and California ’ s other climate policies .
But activists say that another even more important question has mostly gone unasked : What would have happened if California had adopted a different policy altogether ?
Many feel that their communities would have seen greater progress if the state had regulated emitters directly , says Katie Valenzuela .
She grew up in the town of Oildale — in a major oil-producing region in California ’ s Central Valley — and previously served as policy and political director for the California Environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was elected to Sacramento ’ s City Council District 4 , representing midtown and downtown Sacramento and South Land Park .
In recent years , state regulators have tried to tackle inequalities in air quality .
But Valenzuela says that officials have leaned on cap and trade instead of embracing more aggressive climate policies — often at the expense of vulnerable communities .
“ It ’ s been 14 years , and we ’ ve still never had a meaningful discussion about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
” By the time California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewal in 2017 , environmental justice advocates had united against it .
They felt ignored by state officials and abandoned by mainstream environmental groups .
The final reauthorization bill , which extended the program until 2030 , only compounded their sense of betrayal : among other provisions , it exempted many polluting facilities from extra regulation by local air districts .
This souring of relationships was particularly tragic given that many saw California ’ s original climate law as an explicit effort to advance environmental justice .
It was “ integral to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a social entrepreneur and environmental justice advocate who helped shape the bill when he was the executive director of Redefining Progress , a sustainability think tank .
The law directed state officials to consider the impacts of climate policies on “ communities that are already adversely impacted by air pollution.
” It also mandated that the state convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to oversee its climate efforts .
Even the cap-and-trade program , while far from perfect , had equitable ambitions , Gelobter says .
He and other economists note that traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods and services , which disproportionately harms low-income people .
And the extra money that consumers pay goes into the pockets of polluters , Gelobter says .
Thus , to him , the most just climate policies are those that impose a price on carbon and use the revenue to blunt the economic blow on the most vulnerable members of society .
And California has done exactly that .
Every quarter , the state auctions off emissions allowances to polluters ( some are also distributed directly to industries ) and by law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be spent in disadvantaged communities .
In practice , however , the state has delegated far more — almost 60 % , or roughly $ 3 billion in total since the first funds were released in 2014 .
Phil Serna , a member of the California Air Resources Board , sees this as a powerful counterpoint to critiques that cap and trade is unjust .
“ How we invest our resources is really a reflection of our priorities , ” says Serna , who is also a Sacramento County supervisor .
Some cap-and-trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to offset the increased cost of electricity and natural gas caused by the state ’ s climate initiatives .
The rest of the money goes toward projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve water quality .
In disadvantaged neighborhoods , that might mean expanding public transit , increasing access to renewable energy , and building efficient , affordable housing .
Some feel uncomfortable about the source of these funds , because they often come at a cost to community health .
“ We would prefer it if there was no money coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no pollution coming from our economy , ” says Alvaro Sanchez , director of environmental equity at the nonprofit Greenlining Institute .
But from an investment point of view , he says , “ the money picture feels fairly positive.
” In the San Joaquin valley , cap-and-trade funds have helped low-income residents purchase clean cars .
Most of the valley ranks in the upper third of CalEnviroScreen scores and the region has the worst air quality in the nation .
Bakersfield leads the country in particulate pollution , and Fresno ranks second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are agriculture and traffic — not the large industrial facilities covered under cap and trade .
( The program regulates transportation indirectly by forcing fuel distributors to buy emission allowances . )
Under an initiative called Drive Clean in the San Joaquin , residents can get up to $ 9,500 to trade in their old car for a hybrid or electric vehicle .
So far , Drive Clean has replaced 3,000 cars and saved customers hundreds of dollars a month in gas and maintenance costs , says Tom Knox , the executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs the program .
One of those vehicles went to Sokunrith Nop , who emigrated to the U.S. from Cambodia 41 years ago and now lives in Stockton .
He replaced his 1995 Honda Civic with a fully electric 2017 Fiat 500e .
“ I love it .
It suits me perfectly , ” says Nop , who needed something reliable to drive his child to school .
He likes saving money on gas .
And he wants to help the environment .
“ Everybody should drive a car like that where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
He only wishes the program could help more people like him .
“ Those cars are expensive.
” Cap and trade isn ’ t the only way to put a price on carbon , and it ’ s not the only one that raises environmental justice concerns .
Such issues arise whenever policies rely on market forces to drive down emissions — because markets are famously unconcerned with equity .
“ It ’ s all about finding efficiencies , ” says Kyle Meng , an economist at UCSB and a co-author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap .
Still , activists and researchers have proposed numerous ways to make California ’ s program fairer .
For instance , regulators could require that emissions in disadvantaged communities decline at least at the same rate as the overall cap , rather than setting a statewide goal , says James Boyce , an economist at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst .
Officials could also impose geographic restrictions on trading to ensure that the pollution benefits accrue more locally , or force emitters to go through local air permitting processes .
California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly called on regulators to reduce the number of available allowances and do away with offsets—a cost-containment measure that allows polluters to buy added emissions credits from outside projects that reduce carbon emissions , like planting trees or protecting them from logging , often in other states .
Alicia Rivera , a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment in Wilmington , says that she struggles to explain the concept of offsets to residents breathing unhealthy air .
“ The refinery gets credit , but in Wilmington , they haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CARB has not banned offsets , however , starting in 2021 , companies won ’ t be able to use as many , and at least half must benefit the state . )
Some say that California ’ s program would produce more equitable results if it had a more ambitious emissions target , and thus , higher carbon prices .
( By the state ’ s own assessment , cap and trade deserves little credit for its progress so far . )
Others say that it has received too much attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert at Stanford University , argues that cap and trade “ claims to be able to do anything you want … while the politics frustrate any efforts to dial it up to do that.
” Stanley Young , director of communications at CARB , says that cap and trade serves as a backstop for the state ’ s other climate policies , like efforts to increase renewable energy use and clean up traffic pollution .
And he says that it functions as intended—first , as one of several tools to reduce greenhouse gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
California has made good on its obligation to invest the resulting funds in hard-hit communities , but some say it could still do better .
Certain programs that ostensibly benefit disadvantaged communities may not actually do so ; for example , a recent study by Cushing and others found that some of the state ’ s clean vehicle rebate programs serve more well-off Californians than low-income residents .
Sanchez , of the Greenlining Institute , says that the most disadvantaged communities often lack the means to access cap-and-trade revenue .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes reluctant to give control to community-based organizations , says Simeon Gant , executive director of GreenTech , a workforce training program in Sacramento whose students include teenager Abe Francis .
As a result , he says , “ they never get to the people they ’ re targeting.
” Indeed , many Californians have never heard of cap and trade and remain unaware that it produces money for their benefit .
Khamphanthong and others say the state should do a better job of engaging with community members to figure out what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like to see support for green jobs that treat employees well and benefit the community .
“ Why not just work with us to figure out a solution ?
” he asks .
In recent months , California ’ s cap-and-trade program has encountered problems .
At the beginning of the pandemic , the spring auction brought in a fraction of the expected revenue .
And over the summer , the head of California ’ s Environmental Protection Agency , which oversees CARB , released a letter stating that he would work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s dependence on cap and trade going forward .
Whatever California decides , it has to put equity first , says Jackie Cole of Veritable Good , a consulting firm that specializes in environmental justice .
“ If that is not the central lens through which you are developing solutions , then those communities will always be left out , ” she says .
New York may offer an interesting model .
Last year , activists celebrated the passage of a climate law that sets even more aggressive emissions reductions goals than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , and they are hopeful that the state will steer clear of cap-and-trade policies ( they have long fought the East Coast ’ s regional market ) .
Instead , activists support imposing a polluter fee to raise money , on top of strict mandates to cut emissions .
Back in California , CARB passed a resolution — “ almost a constitution , ” says Serna — reaffirming its commitment to social and racial justice in October .
“ I have every expectation that that will eventually find its place into everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he says , including managing cap and trade .
( In September , Black employees at CARB wrote an open letter and proposed an action plan to address concerns about systemic racism within agency culture . )
The state has already taken steps to address air pollution in disadvantaged communities , including issuing new regulations for vehicles — a major contributor .
After Abe Francis participated in a recent CARB panel on environmental justice , the agency offered to install low-cost air monitors at his home as part of a pilot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped his family members stay safe on unhealthy days .
The state has also begun implementing a 2017 law , passed alongside the cap-and-trade extension , that creates a community-focused system for tackling harmful emissions in the most affected neighborhoods .
Along with Richmond , one of the first cities to participate is Wilmington , together with neighboring Carson and West Long Beach .
After a long negotiation among community members , local officials , and industry representatives , refinery managers agreed to cut emissions of several key pollutants by 50 % by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , also includes provisions to reduce pollution from traffic and oil wells .
Rivera , the community organizer , says the refinery agreement represents a victory — albeit hard-won and too late for many .
But Altamirano , the Wilmington resident who served as a member of the community steering committee in the negotiations , isn ’ t quite as hopeful .
She lives close enough to a refinery to hear valves pop open and to smell the noxious fumes that seep out .
Sometimes , flares illuminate the night sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s still waiting to see change .
“ Solo hablan , pero no se hace nada , ” she says .
“ Just talking and then doing nothing.
” This report was made possible in part by the Fund for Environmental Journalism of the Society of Environmental Journalists

Growing up in North Richmond, California, Denny Khamphanthong didn’t think much of the siren that wailed once a month, every first Wednesday at 11 a.m. The alarm is a test of the community’s emergency warning system, which has alerted residents to numerous incidents over the years at the nearby Chevron oil refinery. One accident there — a 2012 fire — sent a cloud of black smoke billowing over San Francisco Bay and left thousands of local residents struggling to breathe.
Now, when Khamphanthong explains the sound to his young nieces, he sees the fear in their eyes. “I forget that this isn’t normal,” he says. Nor is the fact that Khamphanthong and most of his childhood friends carried inhalers. Richmond, a diverse, industrial city where housing prices and incomes have lagged behind its Bay Area neighbors, has poor air quality and some of the highest rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease in California.
“There’s a lot of beautiful things that happen out of [Richmond],” says Khamphanthong, a community organizer with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network whose family emigrated from Laos in the 1980s. “But at the same time, when you look at the reality of it, it is sad.”
Pollution, poverty, and race collide in many other disadvantaged communities across California — and the country — and some argue that the state’s climate policies haven’t helped. While California has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 13% since their peak in 2004, many residents still suffer from high levels of air pollution — much of it produced by fossil fuels.
In particular, controversy has dogged California’s cap-and-trade policy, which took effect in 2013 and regulates roughly 450 entities accounting for 85% of California’s emissions. The system works by setting a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases released by refineries, power plants, and other large emitters, and requires polluters to obtain permits to cover their share. The overall “cap” lowers every year, forcing polluters to reduce their emissions or purchase allowances from others who do.
Economists, environmentalists, and policymakers — many of them White — tout cap and trade as a cost-effective way to cut emissions while generating money for other climate initiatives. But environmental justice activists say the program has not served California’s disadvantaged communities, and particularly communities of color, where many facilities operate. In their eyes, it doesn’t do enough to address climate change and allows emitters to continue polluting the air in the meantime.
For example, state records suggest that the Chevron Richmond Refinery, one of California’s largest emitters, released more greenhouse gases in 2017 and 2018 — the last years for which data are publicly available — than it has since 2008. And in several recent years, it emitted as much or more of certain air pollutants. It has also dramatically increased the volume of gas flared off as waste — another source of harmful compounds. (Representatives from Chevron said that flaring was related to a new hydrogen plant coming online, and that the refinery has made significant investments in reducing emissions of air pollutants over the past 40 years.)
To many, cap and trade highlights a contradiction. “You’re hearing all this great stuff about how amazing your governor and your state is on climate leadership,” says Lucas Zucker, policy and communications director at the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy. But “it doesn’t feel like anything is changing.”
As the United States reckons with its long legacy of racial injustice and the increasingly devastating consequences of climate change, questions about the efficacy and fairness of cap and trade have taken on greater urgency than ever. But seven years on, researchers, regulators, and activists are still arguing about how California’s most famous climate policy has affected its most vulnerable residents — and how to do better.
The Air
Climate change is usually seen as a global problem. But its effects are profoundly local, and often refract through long-standing patterns of inequality and racism.
In the U.S. and elsewhere, low-income residents and people of color shoulder an outsized share of the climate burden. They face greater risks from heat waves, floods, and other climate-related impacts. And they have suffered collateral damage from the harmful pollutants produced by using fossil fuels.
These pollutants, which include particulate matter, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and toxic substances like benzene, have been linked to health problems ranging from respiratory disorders to reproductive problems to cancer. And numerous studies show that polluting facilities and their emissions tend to concentrate in disadvantaged communities.
“Me and my five cousins, we all have asthma,” says Abe Francis, 15, of Sacramento. When Francis was young, doctors prescribed him medication because they feared he might stop breathing in his sleep. He still struggles to catch his breath when he plays basketball at the park. “It’s incredibly scary for me,” says Francis, who is African American.
According to CalEnviroScreen, the system the state uses to identify at-risk populations, his neighborhood falls in the highest fifth of pollution-affected communities in California. It ranks in the 94th percentile for poverty and roughly 90% of residents are people of color.
In Wilmington, a predominantly Latino community in south Los Angeles, Dulce Altamirano says her children and grandchildren suffer from headaches, rashes, nosebleeds, and respiratory problems caused by pollution. “The air quality is very bad,” 45-year-old Altamirano says in Spanish, with a sigh. “I personally have many problems with breathing, with my throat. … There have been times when my husband wanted to call the paramedics.” The city sits among numerous refineries, oil wells and storage facilities, shipping ports, and high-traffic roads, and some neighborhoods rank in the top tenth of CalEnviroScreen scores.
Climate policies present an opportunity to address these issues because greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants often come from the same sources, like industrial smokestacks and vehicle tailpipes. In fact, when California passed its landmark 2006 climate law — which directed the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 — supporters claimed that it would save thousands of lives through improved air quality alone.
But environmental justice advocates grew concerned that these benefits would not be equally distributed when the California Air Resources Board decided to adopt a cap-and-trade program as part of its strategy to implement the law.
CARB turned to cap and trade in part because it had broad support from both environmental groups and industry players, and was already in use by a coalition of East Coast states and the European Union to tackle greenhouse gases. (In 2014, Quebec joined California’s market and several other states and countries have considered or adopted their own versions in recent years.) However, community activists worried that the system would allow companies to find ways to keep emitting, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
“Anytime to you have that kind of pay-to-pollute scheme, the communities that already were being sacrificed — that becomes a business decision,” Zucker says. And some evidence suggests that these fears have come true.
A 2018 study led by Lara Cushing, now at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than half of the facilities covered under cap and trade actually increased their in-state emissions during the first three years of the program. These facilities were also more likely to be located in disadvantaged communities. (In-state emissions were offset by purchasing cleaner power and carbon credits from other projects that reduced emissions elsewhere.)
A 2019 report by the environmental group Food and Water Watch found similar results for the East Coast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a cap-and-trade program that regulates the power sector.
However, a new analysis by economists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, paints a slightly brighter picture in California. The researchers used a model to simulate how pollution spreads in the atmosphere to study how emissions translate to exposure. Like others, they found glaring disparities between disadvantaged communities and their Whiter, more prosperous neighbors. But while this so-called environmental justice gap increased in the years before cap and trade took effect, it fell by 20% to 30% afterwards in the areas where facilities were covered by the program.
The California studies, which took different approaches, do not offer a clear answer about whether cap and trade has helped or harmed disadvantaged communities in the state. Both had to wrestle with outside factors that affected emissions, such as the Great Recession and California’s other climate policies. But activists say that another even more important question has mostly gone unasked: What would have happened if California had adopted a different policy altogether?
Many feel that their communities would have seen greater progress if the state had regulated emitters directly, says Katie Valenzuela. She grew up in the town of Oildale — in a major oil-producing region in California’s Central Valley — and previously served as policy and political director for the California Environmental Justice Alliance. In March, Valenzuela was elected to Sacramento’s City Council District 4, representing midtown and downtown Sacramento and South Land Park.
In recent years, state regulators have tried to tackle inequalities in air quality. But Valenzuela says that officials have leaned on cap and trade instead of embracing more aggressive climate policies — often at the expense of vulnerable communities. “It’s been 14 years, and we’ve still never had a meaningful discussion about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.”
The Money
By the time California’s cap-and-trade program came up for renewal in 2017, environmental justice advocates had united against it. They felt ignored by state officials and abandoned by mainstream environmental groups. The final reauthorization bill, which extended the program until 2030, only compounded their sense of betrayal: among other provisions, it exempted many polluting facilities from extra regulation by local air districts.
This souring of relationships was particularly tragic given that many saw California’s original climate law as an explicit effort to advance environmental justice. It was “integral to the design,” says Michel Gelobter, a social entrepreneur and environmental justice advocate who helped shape the bill when he was the executive director of Redefining Progress, a sustainability think tank.
The law directed state officials to consider the impacts of climate policies on “communities that are already adversely impacted by air pollution.” It also mandated that the state convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to oversee its climate efforts. Even the cap-and-trade program, while far from perfect, had equitable ambitions, Gelobter says.
He and other economists note that traditional environmental regulations often raise the cost of goods and services, which disproportionately harms low-income people. And the extra money that consumers pay goes into the pockets of polluters, Gelobter says. Thus, to him, the most just climate policies are those that impose a price on carbon and use the revenue to blunt the economic blow on the most vulnerable members of society. And California has done exactly that.
Every quarter, the state auctions off emissions allowances to polluters (some are also distributed directly to industries) and by law, 35% of the money raised must be spent in disadvantaged communities. In practice, however, the state has delegated far more — almost 60%, or roughly $3 billion in total since the first funds were released in 2014.
Phil Serna, a member of the California Air Resources Board, sees this as a powerful counterpoint to critiques that cap and trade is unjust. “How we invest our resources is really a reflection of our priorities,” says Serna, who is also a Sacramento County supervisor.
Some cap-and-trade revenue goes directly to California residents, to offset the increased cost of electricity and natural gas caused by the state’s climate initiatives. The rest of the money goes toward projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve water quality. In disadvantaged neighborhoods, that might mean expanding public transit, increasing access to renewable energy, and building efficient, affordable housing.
Some feel uncomfortable about the source of these funds, because they often come at a cost to community health. “We would prefer it if there was no money coming from the cap-and-trade system because there was no pollution coming from our economy,” says Alvaro Sanchez, director of environmental equity at the nonprofit Greenlining Institute. But from an investment point of view, he says, “the money picture feels fairly positive.”
In the San Joaquin valley, cap-and-trade funds have helped low-income residents purchase clean cars. Most of the valley ranks in the upper third of CalEnviroScreen scores and the region has the worst air quality in the nation. Bakersfield leads the country in particulate pollution, and Fresno ranks second. But here, the leading culprits are agriculture and traffic — not the large industrial facilities covered under cap and trade. (The program regulates transportation indirectly by forcing fuel distributors to buy emission allowances.)
Under an initiative called Drive Clean in the San Joaquin, residents can get up to $9,500 to trade in their old car for a hybrid or electric vehicle. So far, Drive Clean has replaced 3,000 cars and saved customers hundreds of dollars a month in gas and maintenance costs, says Tom Knox, the executive director of Valley Clean Air Now, which runs the program.
One of those vehicles went to Sokunrith Nop, who emigrated to the U.S. from Cambodia 41 years ago and now lives in Stockton. He replaced his 1995 Honda Civic with a fully electric 2017 Fiat 500e. “I love it. It suits me perfectly,” says Nop, who needed something reliable to drive his child to school.
He likes saving money on gas. And he wants to help the environment. “Everybody should drive a car like that where we don’t pollute,” Nop says. He only wishes the program could help more people like him. “Those cars are expensive.”
The Rub
Cap and trade isn’t the only way to put a price on carbon, and it’s not the only one that raises environmental justice concerns. Such issues arise whenever policies rely on market forces to drive down emissions — because markets are famously unconcerned with equity. “It’s all about finding efficiencies,” says Kyle Meng, an economist at UCSB and a co-author of the study on the environmental justice gap.
Still, activists and researchers have proposed numerous ways to make California’s program fairer. For instance, regulators could require that emissions in disadvantaged communities decline at least at the same rate as the overall cap, rather than setting a statewide goal, says James Boyce, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Officials could also impose geographic restrictions on trading to ensure that the pollution benefits accrue more locally, or force emitters to go through local air permitting processes.
California’s Environmental Justice Advisory Committee has repeatedly called on regulators to reduce the number of available allowances and do away with offsets—a cost-containment measure that allows polluters to buy added emissions credits from outside projects that reduce carbon emissions, like planting trees or protecting them from logging, often in other states.
Alicia Rivera, a community organizer for Communities for a Better Environment in Wilmington, says that she struggles to explain the concept of offsets to residents breathing unhealthy air. “The refinery gets credit, but in Wilmington, they haven’t reduced anything,” she says. (CARB has not banned offsets, however, starting in 2021, companies won’t be able to use as many, and at least half must benefit the state.)
Some say that California’s program would produce more equitable results if it had a more ambitious emissions target, and thus, higher carbon prices. (By the state’s own assessment, cap and trade deserves little credit for its progress so far.) Others say that it has received too much attention. Danny Cullenward, a climate policy expert at Stanford University, argues that cap and trade “claims to be able to do anything you want … while the politics frustrate any efforts to dial it up to do that.”
Stanley Young, director of communications at CARB, says that cap and trade serves as a backstop for the state’s other climate policies, like efforts to increase renewable energy use and clean up traffic pollution. And he says that it functions as intended—first, as one of several tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and second, to raise money.
California has made good on its obligation to invest the resulting funds in hard-hit communities, but some say it could still do better. Certain programs that ostensibly benefit disadvantaged communities may not actually do so; for example, a recent study by Cushing and others found that some of the state’s clean vehicle rebate programs serve more well-off Californians than low-income residents.
Sanchez, of the Greenlining Institute, says that the most disadvantaged communities often lack the means to access cap-and-trade revenue. And when they do, state agencies are sometimes reluctant to give control to community-based organizations, says Simeon Gant, executive director of GreenTech, a workforce training program in Sacramento whose students include teenager Abe Francis. As a result, he says, “they never get to the people they’re targeting.”
Indeed, many Californians have never heard of cap and trade and remain unaware that it produces money for their benefit. Khamphanthong and others say the state should do a better job of engaging with community members to figure out what they need most. In Richmond, Khamphanthong would like to see support for green jobs that treat employees well and benefit the community. “Why not just work with us to figure out a solution?” he asks.
The Future
In recent months, California’s cap-and-trade program has encountered problems. At the beginning of the pandemic, the spring auction brought in a fraction of the expected revenue. And over the summer, the head of California’s Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees CARB, released a letter stating that he would work with the board to reevaluate the state’s dependence on cap and trade going forward.
Whatever California decides, it has to put equity first, says Jackie Cole of Veritable Good, a consulting firm that specializes in environmental justice. “If that is not the central lens through which you are developing solutions, then those communities will always be left out,” she says.
New York may offer an interesting model. Last year, activists celebrated the passage of a climate law that sets even more aggressive emissions reductions goals than California. Environmental justice groups championed the bill, and they are hopeful that the state will steer clear of cap-and-trade policies (they have long fought the East Coast’s regional market). Instead, activists support imposing a polluter fee to raise money, on top of strict mandates to cut emissions.
Back in California, CARB passed a resolution — “almost a constitution,” says Serna — reaffirming its commitment to social and racial justice in October. “I have every expectation that that will eventually find its place into everything that we continue to do at CARB,” he says, including managing cap and trade. (In September, Black employees at CARB wrote an open letter and proposed an action plan to address concerns about systemic racism within agency culture.)
The state has already taken steps to address air pollution in disadvantaged communities, including issuing new regulations for vehicles — a major contributor. After Abe Francis participated in a recent CARB panel on environmental justice, the agency offered to install low-cost air monitors at his home as part of a pilot program. Francis said they have already helped his family members stay safe on unhealthy days.
The state has also begun implementing a 2017 law, passed alongside the cap-and-trade extension, that creates a community-focused system for tackling harmful emissions in the most affected neighborhoods. Along with Richmond, one of the first cities to participate is Wilmington, together with neighboring Carson and West Long Beach. After a long negotiation among community members, local officials, and industry representatives, refinery managers agreed to cut emissions of several key pollutants by 50% by 2030. The final plan, released last year, also includes provisions to reduce pollution from traffic and oil wells.
Rivera, the community organizer, says the refinery agreement represents a victory — albeit hard-won and too late for many. But Altamirano, the Wilmington resident who served as a member of the community steering committee in the negotiations, isn’t quite as hopeful.
She lives close enough to a refinery to hear valves pop open and to smell the noxious fumes that seep out. Sometimes, flares illuminate the night sky above her house. And she says she’s still waiting to see change.
“Solo hablan, pero no se hace nada,” she says. “Just talking and then doing nothing.”
This report was made possible in part by the Fund for Environmental Journalism of the Society of Environmental Journalists


truthout--2020-11-22--Hospital Bills Amid the Pandemic Are Outrageous. Medicare for All Is the Fix.

Hospitals in the United States charge patients as much as 1,800 % more than their costs amid the coronavirus pandemic , according to a new study .
The 100 most expensive hospitals in the United States charge between $ 1,129 and $ 1,808 for every $ 100 of their costs , according to a study by National Nurses United , the largest nurses union in the country .
Overall , hospitals across the US charge an average of $ 417 for every $ 100 of their costs .
The average markup has more than doubled over the past two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markups have resulted in hospital profits skyrocketing by 411 % from 1999 to 2017 , hitting a record $ 88 billion .
“ The rise in charges coincides with growing hospital mergers and acquisitions by large systems , ” the union said in a news release .
“ The result is increased market consolidation , which leads to higher profits and increased charges , not savings for patients as hospital systems often claim.
” Medical workers worry that high costs will increase the number of people avoiding medical care .
“ There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are not markups for luxury condo views , they are for the most basic necessity of your life : your health , ” nurse Jean Ross , the president of the union , said in a statement .
“ Unpayable charges are a calamity for our patients , too many of whom avoid — at great risk to their health — the medical care they need due to the high cost , or they become burdened by devastating debt , hounded by bill collectors or driven into bankruptcy.
” The union warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Covid-19 treatment costs.
” A study by the health care data nonprofit FAIR Health in the spring found that uninsured coronavirus patients or those that receive care considered out-of-network by their insurer face costs ranging from $ 42,486 to $ 74,310 if they require inpatient hospital treatment .
A survey by the health care research group the Commonwealth Fund also found that more than two-thirds of Americans say that “ potential out-of-pocket costs would be very or somewhat important in their decision to seek care if they had symptoms of the coronavirus.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals , uninsured patients have little recourse .
And as with other health care and coronavirus-related disparities , people of color are disproportionately impacted .
Latinos are nearly three times as likely and Black people are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured than white Americans , according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation .
The National Nurses United report argued that the findings further make the case for a Medicare for All system because Medicare is the “ most effective ” system to limit price gouging .
“ The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital charges and the continued inflation of hospital prices , is to bring all health care purchasers together , under a public , nationwide single-payer plan , ” the report said .
The RAND Corporation , a nonprofit think tank , found that hospitals charged private insurers an average of 2.4 times more than Medicare rates .
“ Nurses know that the best way to rein in these outrageous charges that create such grievous harm for our patients is with Medicare for All , as other countries have proven , ” said Ross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All will not only guarantee health care coverage for every person in the United States , it will end medical bankruptcies , medical debt lawsuits , and the health insecurity faced by millions who make painful choices every day about whether to seek the care they desperately need.
” Republicans like President Donald Trump and centrist Democrats like President-elect Joe Biden have forcefully pushed back on the idea of a single-payer health system , arguing that it would kick tens of millions of people off their employer-provided insurance and vastly increase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they lose money under Medicare .
“ Medicare payment rates , which reimburse below the cost of care , should not be held as a standard benchmark for hospital prices , ” Melinda Hatton of the American Hospital Association , an industry trade group , told The New York Times .
“ Simply shifting to prices based on artificially low Medicare payment rates would strip vital resources from already strapped communities , seriously impeding access to care.
” But the disparity between insurer and Medicare rates shows “ market forces are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a health economist at the University of California , Berkeley , told the outlet .
“ Prices vary widely and are two and a half times higher than Medicare payment rates without any apparent reason.
” Studies have repeatedly shown that single-payer systems vastly drive down the cost of health care , as they have in countries that have long had such systems .
A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this year found that 34 % of health care expenditures go toward administrative costs alone .
The US spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs in 2017 , compared to $ 551 per person in Canada , which has a single-payer system .
Switching to a single-payer system would drive down health care costs by $ 600 billion on administrative costs alone , according to the analysis .
“ Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care .
But instead of buying better care , that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork , ” lead author Dr. David Himmelstein , a professor at the CUNY School of Public Health at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another study published in The Lancet earlier this year found that Medicare for All would save the country about $ 450 billion per year while preventing more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths annually .
Lead researcher Dr. Alison Galvani , an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale University , argued that Biden ’ s proposal to essentially expand Obamacare could actually increase costs compared to the Medicare for All plan that the president-elect decried during the primaries as too costly .
“ Without the savings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees , and fraud detection , ‘ Medicare for all who want it ’ could annually cost $ 175 billion dollars more than status quo , ” she told Newsweek .
“ That ’ s over $ 600 billion more than Medicare for all.
” An analysis published in PLOS Medicine of 22 single-payer studies showed that 19 of them “ predicted net savings … in the first year of program operation and 20 … predicted savings over several years ; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by switching to a single-payer system would result in doctor shortages and the rationing of health care .
But data shows that fewer than 1 % of doctors have opted out of the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs , with nearly half of those being psychiatrists .
Single-payer proponents also dismiss rationing claims , arguing that Americans are already effectively self-rationing due to sky-high costs , even for those with private insurance .
A Federal Reserve survey published last year found that about 25 % of American “ adults skipped necessary medical care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford the cost.
” Another survey found that 26 % of Americans with diabetes have rationed their insulin , primarily due to the cost .
“ It would be a missed opportunity for America to ignore lessons about universal coverage from other countries out of a fear that they ration health care more than we do , ” researchers at the Commonwealth Fund warned in a report last year .
“ In reality , more people in the U.S. forgo needed health care because access to care is rationed through lack of access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatments .
”

A new study finds that some hospitals are charging patients more than 18 times the cost of care amid the pandemic.
Hospitals in the United States charge patients as much as 1,800% more than their costs amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new study.
The 100 most expensive hospitals in the United States charge between $1,129 and $1,808 for every $100 of their costs, according to a study by National Nurses United, the largest nurses union in the country.
Overall, hospitals across the US charge an average of $417 for every $100 of their costs. The average markup has more than doubled over the past two decades, according to the report.
The markups have resulted in hospital profits skyrocketing by 411% from 1999 to 2017, hitting a record $88 billion.
“The rise in charges coincides with growing hospital mergers and acquisitions by large systems,” the union said in a news release. “The result is increased market consolidation, which leads to higher profits and increased charges, not savings for patients as hospital systems often claim.”
Medical workers worry that high costs will increase the number of people avoiding medical care.
“There is no excuse for these scandalous prices. These are not markups for luxury condo views, they are for the most basic necessity of your life: your health,” nurse Jean Ross, the president of the union, said in a statement. “Unpayable charges are a calamity for our patients, too many of whom avoid — at great risk to their health — the medical care they need due to the high cost, or they become burdened by devastating debt, hounded by bill collectors or driven into bankruptcy.”
The union warned that “high hospital charges also drive up Covid-19 treatment costs.”
A study by the health care data nonprofit FAIR Health in the spring found that uninsured coronavirus patients or those that receive care considered out-of-network by their insurer face costs ranging from $42,486 to $74,310 if they require inpatient hospital treatment.
A survey by the health care research group the Commonwealth Fund also found that more than two-thirds of Americans say that “potential out-of-pocket costs would be very or somewhat important in their decision to seek care if they had symptoms of the coronavirus.”
While insurers often negotiate prices with hospitals, uninsured patients have little recourse. And as with other health care and coronavirus-related disparities, people of color are disproportionately impacted. Latinos are nearly three times as likely and Black people are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured than white Americans, according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The National Nurses United report argued that the findings further make the case for a Medicare for All system because Medicare is the “most effective” system to limit price gouging.
“The most viable solution to slowing the growth in hospital charges and the continued inflation of hospital prices, is to bring all health care purchasers together, under a public, nationwide single-payer plan,” the report said.
The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank, found that hospitals charged private insurers an average of 2.4 times more than Medicare rates.
“Nurses know that the best way to rein in these outrageous charges that create such grievous harm for our patients is with Medicare for All, as other countries have proven,” said Ross, the union president. “Medicare for All will not only guarantee health care coverage for every person in the United States, it will end medical bankruptcies, medical debt lawsuits, and the health insecurity faced by millions who make painful choices every day about whether to seek the care they desperately need.”
Republicans like President Donald Trump and centrist Democrats like President-elect Joe Biden have forcefully pushed back on the idea of a single-payer health system, arguing that it would kick tens of millions of people off their employer-provided insurance and vastly increase the federal budget.
Hospitals have also argued that they lose money under Medicare.
“Medicare payment rates, which reimburse below the cost of care, should not be held as a standard benchmark for hospital prices,” Melinda Hatton of the American Hospital Association, an industry trade group, told The New York Times. “Simply shifting to prices based on artificially low Medicare payment rates would strip vital resources from already strapped communities, seriously impeding access to care.”
But the disparity between insurer and Medicare rates shows “market forces are clearly not working,” Richard Scheffler, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley, told the outlet. “Prices vary widely and are two and a half times higher than Medicare payment rates without any apparent reason.”
Studies have repeatedly shown that single-payer systems vastly drive down the cost of health care, as they have in countries that have long had such systems.
A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this year found that 34% of health care expenditures go toward administrative costs alone. The US spent about $2,497 per person on administrative costs in 2017, compared to $551 per person in Canada, which has a single-payer system. Switching to a single-payer system would drive down health care costs by $600 billion on administrative costs alone, according to the analysis.
“Americans spend twice as much per person as Canadians on health care. But instead of buying better care, that extra spending buys us sky-high profits and useless paperwork,” lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, said in a statement.
Another study published in The Lancet earlier this year found that Medicare for All would save the country about $450 billion per year while preventing more than 68,000 unnecessary deaths annually.
Lead researcher Dr. Alison Galvani, an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale University, argued that Biden’s proposal to essentially expand Obamacare could actually increase costs compared to the Medicare for All plan that the president-elect decried during the primaries as too costly.
“Without the savings to overhead, pharmaceutical costs, hospital/clinical fees, and fraud detection, ‘Medicare for all who want it’ could annually cost $175 billion dollars more than status quo,” she told Newsweek. “That’s over $600 billion more than Medicare for all.”
An analysis published in PLOS Medicine of 22 single-payer studies showed that 19 of them “predicted net savings … in the first year of program operation and 20 … predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans.”
Critics have argued that reducing costs by switching to a single-payer system would result in doctor shortages and the rationing of health care. But data shows that fewer than 1% of doctors have opted out of the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, with nearly half of those being psychiatrists. Single-payer proponents also dismiss rationing claims, arguing that Americans are already effectively self-rationing due to sky-high costs, even for those with private insurance.
A Federal Reserve survey published last year found that about 25% of American “adults skipped necessary medical care in 2018 because they were unable to afford the cost.” Another survey found that 26% of Americans with diabetes have rationed their insulin, primarily due to the cost.
“It would be a missed opportunity for America to ignore lessons about universal coverage from other countries out of a fear that they ration health care more than we do,” researchers at the Commonwealth Fund warned in a report last year. “In reality, more people in the U.S. forgo needed health care because access to care is rationed through lack of access to adequate insurance or unaffordable services and treatments.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-22--Tyson Exploits Consumers Just Like Its Animals and the Workers Who Raise Them

The actions of the U.S. meat industry throughout the pandemic have brought to light the true corruption and waste that are inherent within our food system .
Despite a new wave of rising COVID-19 cases , the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently submitted a proposal to further increase slaughter line speeds by 25 percent , which are already far too fast and highly dangerous .
It ’ s evident that the industry will exploit its workers and animals all to boost its profit .
The revelations continued when Tyson Foods , the world ’ s second-largest producer of chicken , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice to avoid scrutiny into the company ’ s role in the monopolization of the industry to fix prices of chicken for both consumers and retailers .
This news comes at a time when Tyson has already been under fire for exposing its workers to an enormous risk of contracting COVID-19 .
We can now add competitors and consumers to the ever-growing list of those victimized by the corporate giant .
This is further evidence that it ’ s time for our nation ’ s food supply chain to change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO Noel White , replaced by Dean Banks in October , rushed to cooperate under the Department of Justice ’ s antitrust leniency program , stating , “ I am proud to lead a company that took appropriate and immediate actions in reporting the wrongdoing we discovered to the Department of Justice.
” What White failed to mention is that cooperating will afford Tyson protection from public scrutiny and legal fines , at the expense of its competitors .
Unethical business practices seem to be the norm for Tyson Foods .
Due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harsh attendance policies , more than 10,000 Tyson plant workers tested positive for the virus , substantially more than any other U.S. meat company .
Before the pandemic , working on a meat processing line was one of the most dangerous jobs in the United States .
Now , with the constant threat of COVID-19 looming over these elbow-to-elbow assembly lines , meat processing may be among the most deadly jobs in the world .
Workers are not just getting sick from this virus — they ’ re dying .
The pandemic has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain .
While Tyson has not yet engaged in the mass “ depopulation ” of animals that other producers resorted to , in a typical week , the company slaughters an estimated 37 million chickens .
The poor treatment of the chickens within its supply chain — including breeding birds to grow at such an unnaturally fast rate that they can ’ t even hold up their own bodies — has made Tyson the target of public campaigns urging the company to make meaningful changes .
More than 120 labor , food justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banded together to take action against the company .
Tyson must take immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of its workers , make improvements to support animal welfare and reduce its harsh impact on the environment .
For too long , the unethical , avaricious practices of the meat industry have been hidden from view .
The scandals surrounding Tyson and other major producers are making clear that vulnerable workers , abused animals and a rigged system are the foundation of an unethical and destructive business model .
Tyson had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it must step up its role in fixing it .
The meat giant has had one singular focus since its inception : profit .
The company ’ s greed has caused it to exploit anyone in its path .
Tyson ’ s disregard for human and animal life extends to its workers , animals killed in its plants , consumers and now its competitors .
Tyson took ownership for rigging the system using price-fixing .
It ’ s time for Tyson to take ownership for exploiting and endangering its more vulnerable victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tyson to stop neglecting workers , animals and public health .
Sign the petition urging the U.S. chicken meat industry to end the cruel practice of boiling birds alive .
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

The actions of the U.S. meat industry throughout the pandemic have brought to light the true corruption and waste that are inherent within our food system. Despite a new wave of rising COVID-19 cases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently submitted a proposal to further increase slaughter line speeds by 25 percent, which are already far too fast and highly dangerous. It’s evident that the industry will exploit its workers and animals all to boost its profit.
The revelations continued when Tyson Foods, the world’s second-largest producer of chicken, beef and pork, cooperated with the Department of Justice to avoid scrutiny into the company’s role in the monopolization of the industry to fix prices of chicken for both consumers and retailers. This news comes at a time when Tyson has already been under fire for exposing its workers to an enormous risk of contracting COVID-19. We can now add competitors and consumers to the ever-growing list of those victimized by the corporate giant. This is further evidence that it’s time for our nation’s food supply chain to change in a big way.
Tyson Foods former CEO Noel White, replaced by Dean Banks in October, rushed to cooperate under the Department of Justice’s antitrust leniency program, stating, “I am proud to lead a company that took appropriate and immediate actions in reporting the wrongdoing we discovered to the Department of Justice.” What White failed to mention is that cooperating will afford Tyson protection from public scrutiny and legal fines, at the expense of its competitors.
Unethical business practices seem to be the norm for Tyson Foods. Due to a lack of proper safety measures and harsh attendance policies, more than 10,000 Tyson plant workers tested positive for the virus, substantially more than any other U.S. meat company. Before the pandemic, working on a meat processing line was one of the most dangerous jobs in the United States. Now, with the constant threat of COVID-19 looming over these elbow-to-elbow assembly lines, meat processing may be among the most deadly jobs in the world. Workers are not just getting sick from this virus — they’re dying.
The pandemic has led to major disruptions in the supply chain. While Tyson has not yet engaged in the mass “depopulation” of animals that other producers resorted to, in a typical week, the company slaughters an estimated 37 million chickens. The poor treatment of the chickens within its supply chain — including breeding birds to grow at such an unnaturally fast rate that they can’t even hold up their own bodies — has made Tyson the target of public campaigns urging the company to make meaningful changes.
More than 120 labor, food justice, animal welfare and environmental organizations have banded together to take action against the company. Tyson must take immediate action to protect the safety and well-being of its workers, make improvements to support animal welfare and reduce its harsh impact on the environment.
For too long, the unethical, avaricious practices of the meat industry have been hidden from view. The scandals surrounding Tyson and other major producers are making clear that vulnerable workers, abused animals and a rigged system are the foundation of an unethical and destructive business model.
Tyson had a role in creating the industrialized system, and it must step up its role in fixing it. The meat giant has had one singular focus since its inception: profit. The company’s greed has caused it to exploit anyone in its path. Tyson’s disregard for human and animal life extends to its workers, animals killed in its plants, consumers and now its competitors. Tyson took ownership for rigging the system using price-fixing. It’s time for Tyson to take ownership for exploiting and endangering its more vulnerable victims as well.
Sign the petition urging Tyson to stop neglecting workers, animals and public health.
Sign the petition urging the U.S. chicken meat industry to end the cruel practice of boiling birds alive.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.