truthout--2020-04-24--The Courts Won’t Free Migrant Children Because of COVID-19. We Must.

Migrant child detention is in the national spotlight again .
Because of COVID-19 , a U.S. District Court is considering mass release of children from Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) and Office of Refugee Resettlement ( ORR ) custody .
Like many times before , coverage of this story has not included voices of community and family members who have resisted migrant child detention for years .
My organization , Little Village Solidarity Network ( LVSN ) , a Chicago-based group fighting migrant child detention , obtained copies of the judge ’ s initial opinions .
The opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ensure the children ’ s safety , and community groups will continue direct pressure on ORR and ICE facilities .
However , this court case is a rare moment – advocates have said “ free them all ” for years , and this is the first time we are seeing that possibility debated in court , though centered on COVID-19 .
On March 26 , the National Center for Youth Law and co-counsel filed an application with a U.S. District Court claiming that , in light of the coronavirus pandemic , immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ releasing most children immediately .
The lawyers petitioned the court to force detention facilities to release all the children they can , provide justification for any who are not released , and prove that they are complying with the COVID-19 guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) .
On March 28 , District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee issued an initial ruling granting some of the lawyer ’ s requests and denying others .
Judge Gee denied the request to immediately release the children en masse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1 ) by April 6 , ORR and ICE must provide a summary of steps they are taking to release the children ; ( 2 ) by April 9 , all ORR and ICE facilities must undergo inspection to collect evidence on their health and safety protocols ; and ( 3 ) by April 10 , ORR and ICE must justify the detention of each child still in custody .
ORR and ICE filed their arguments on April 10 and provided supplementary information on April 17 .
Judge Gee issued a brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filings , noting that ICE provided “ minimal detail ” about the circumstances of each child still in their custody , while ORR provided detailed documentation for children still detained in 33 facilities located in the states with the largest COVID-19 outbreaks at the time .
After April 24 , the District Court will issue a final decision , determining whether ICE and ORR have broken the law in their continued detention of children and setting a timeline for the children ’ s release .
Odds do not look good for the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the children .
Judge Gee ’ s opinion states , “ the interests of all parties and the public are not well served at this time by rushing to release minors en masse in the midst of the current travel restrictions or to release them to potentially unfit custodians based on limited information.
” The District Court appears to be sympathetic to the argument that as many children as possible should be released as quickly as possible .
However , if the court does rule in this direction after April 24 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicated , and less comprehensive than community groups and families may want .
ORR and ICE have the discretion to expedite children ’ s cases even without a court order , and while these court proceedings unfold , community groups will continue pressuring detention facilities to release the children .
In considering the health and safety conditions of ORR and ICE facilities , the Court seemed unable to reconcile the fact that social distancing is not possible in detention .
The Court ruled that ICE was “ deficient ” in nearly all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the Court found that “ ORR appears to be in substantial compliance ” with its “ obligations to implement CDC-compliant guidelines.
” Judge Gee did not explain how the court found ORR to be compliant while stating that ORR “ fails to address recommendations related to social distancing , personal hygiene , or personal protective equipment.
” The Court also notes that ORR custody qualifies as “ congregate care ” under CDC guidelines and that congregate care “ refers to settings where numerous people sleep , eat , bathe , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , by definition , is incompatible with social distancing.
” The Court does not reconcile how it can find ORR to be in “ substantial compliance ” while its facilities are “ by definition ” incompatible with one of the most important CDC recommendations , social distancing .
One surprising aspect of the Court ’ s March opinion was that it appeared to confirm truths accepted by community struggle but denied by immigration agencies : that children are being unnecessarily detained and remain in custody for longer than is justifiable even by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Judge Gee ’ s March opinion ( emphases added ) : Judge Gee also noted that ORR ’ s “ apparent failure ” to document its reunification efforts made it difficult to ascertain how many releases were delayed “ without good reason , ” which would violate the law , prompting her demand for detailed justification for all children remaining in custody in ICE and ORR ’ s April 10 filings .
Families of migrant children and their allies have pointed out for years that the majority of detained children have family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could be reunited with these relatives quickly , and that this method of incarceration is unnecessary and cruel .
Furthermore , detaining these children for longer times reaps information that benefits immigration enforcement but does not benefit the health and safety of the children .
While Judge Gee does not echo those arguments , the data presented in the court opinion tells its own story and affirms certain truths that immigration officials continuously deny .
It is important to emphasize that these children are not detained because they have violated immigration law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are detained automatically in mandatory , mass detention .
While detained , the government investigates the children ’ s family to approve a “ sponsor.
” The child is then released to the sponsor to await their immigration trial ( most qualify for asylum ) .
It is the only form of incarceration in the U.S. that does not have bail – the only way for families to reunite is to cooperate with the investigation .
However , the collected information is available to ICE ’ s deportation machinery .
LVSN recently published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was detained in ORR facilities for 322 days because he refused to cooperate with the investigation of his family .
He would not provide any information to ORR , well aware of how it could be used , and stayed locked up until he turned 18 .
He was then transferred to an adult ICE prison and his family paid his bail immediately .
“ They just want to know anything they can get from you , ” José said .
“ They ask you questions .
And if you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will not see your family .
So , what they ’ re basically doing is blackmail.
” Because of stories like José ’ s , LVSN was keen to see how ORR and ICE would attempt to justify the cases of children who have been in custody for so long in their April 10 filings .
Families and allies of the children can provide many reasons : According to former volunteers with Interfaith Community for Detained Immigrants , Muslim children are generally held longer than all other kids .
A small percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. or have far more complicated cases .
Children resist the investigation to protect their families .
What would ICE and ORR say ?
On April 10 , ICE still refused to provide details on individual children ’ s circumstances , simply stating the number of children in custody and the fact that the remaining children were all subject to court dates .
In Judge Gee ’ s response , the Court noted that , “ ICE ’ s uniform perfunctory explanations for non-release seem to imply that a blanket prohibition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pending court cases .
According to Judge Gee , ICE did not address “ what individualized parole determinations and continuous efforts to secure a minor ’ s release ” ICE is undertaking in the circumstances of the pandemic .
Meanwhile , ORR ’ s detailed documentation provided new information on their internal justification for continued detention .
ORR ’ s reasons for non-release included that the agency has a blanket ban on releasing children to sponsors in New York , California and Washington State ( although it was unclear if this policy had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders ) .
Additionally , ORR issued a blanket ban on releasing children held in facilities with confirmed cases of COVID-19 , despite the possibility of children quarantining safely at home .
Finally , ORR has refused to adapt its fingerprinting and home inspection requirements to approve sponsors , despite the pandemic-related closure of fingerprinting facilities and suspension of home inspection visits .
Judge Gee noted that both ICE ’ s “ cursory and unsatisfactory efforts ” and ORR ’ s “ failure to adapt ” present “ several issues that may result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that may violate the law .
However , these possible violations still may not guarantee the immediate freedom of the children after the Court ’ s April 24 ruling .
Communities resisting migrant child detention refuse to be idle while the court debates ; the effects of COVID-19 are dire for the children .
ProPublica recently released leaked emails confirming the largest outbreak of COVID-19 in a migrant child detention facility in Chicago , with 42 of 69 children in custody testing positive .
LVSN visits this center frequently to advocate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children holding up signs reading “ HELP ” from the windows of the facility .
Children who are currently detained are also still expected to show up for their immigration court dates in person .
Meanwhile , no new children are being taken into ORR/ICE custody ; the Trump administration has used CDC guidelines to justify the immediate deportation of children who arrive at the border who would have otherwise been placed in these facilities .
These immediate deportations likely violate the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ( TVPRA ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detention of migrant children but also mandated more extensive legal counsel and other protections for children fleeing violence and abuse .
In his recent Just Security exposé of the administration ’ s COVID deportations , Professor Lucas Guttentag of Stanford Law School writes , “ The COVID border ban attempts to erect a shadow immigration system devoid of constitutional protections that erases fundamental statutory safeguards implementing refugee protection obligations.
” He emphasizes that the TVPRA makes unaccompanied migrant children “ entitled to procedural and humanitarian protections , including a determination of whether they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being subject to human trafficking , ” and that “ none of these mandates or requirements is addressed or respected in the CDC expulsion process.
” Community groups like LVSN will continue to put direct pressure on ORR and ICE facilities to expedite the release and reunification of the children .
We will also continue to respond as ORR and ICE attempt to justify themselves , regardless of how the District Court rules after April 24 .
The court case is not the only terrain of struggle for the well-being of migrant children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices heard through direct action and public pressure until we achieve what the courts can ’ t or won ’ t – freedom for all migrant children .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Migrant child detention is in the national spotlight again. Because of COVID-19, a U.S. District Court is considering mass release of children from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody. Like many times before, coverage of this story has not included voices of community and family members who have resisted migrant child detention for years. My organization, Little Village Solidarity Network (LVSN), a Chicago-based group fighting migrant child detention, obtained copies of the judge’s initial opinions. The opinions do not inspire trust that the court will ensure the children’s safety, and community groups will continue direct pressure on ORR and ICE facilities. However, this court case is a rare moment – advocates have said “free them all” for years, and this is the first time we are seeing that possibility debated in court, though centered on COVID-19.
On March 26, the National Center for Youth Law and co-counsel filed an application with a U.S. District Court claiming that, in light of the coronavirus pandemic, immigration authorities are breaking the law by not releasing most children immediately. The lawyers petitioned the court to force detention facilities to release all the children they can, provide justification for any who are not released, and prove that they are complying with the COVID-19 guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On March 28, District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee issued an initial ruling granting some of the lawyer’s requests and denying others.
Judge Gee denied the request to immediately release the children en masse. However, the court did order that (1) by April 6, ORR and ICE must provide a summary of steps they are taking to release the children; (2) by April 9, all ORR and ICE facilities must undergo inspection to collect evidence on their health and safety protocols; and (3) by April 10, ORR and ICE must justify the detention of each child still in custody.
ORR and ICE filed their arguments on April 10 and provided supplementary information on April 17. Judge Gee issued a brief response to ORR and ICE’s filings, noting that ICE provided “minimal detail” about the circumstances of each child still in their custody, while ORR provided detailed documentation for children still detained in 33 facilities located in the states with the largest COVID-19 outbreaks at the time. After April 24, the District Court will issue a final decision, determining whether ICE and ORR have broken the law in their continued detention of children and setting a timeline for the children’s release.
Odds do not look good for the court to order an immediate release of all the children. Judge Gee’s opinion states, “the interests of all parties and the public are not well served at this time by rushing to release minors en masse in the midst of the current travel restrictions or to release them to potentially unfit custodians based on limited information.” The District Court appears to be sympathetic to the argument that as many children as possible should be released as quickly as possible. However, if the court does rule in this direction after April 24, the process will likely be longer, more complicated, and less comprehensive than community groups and families may want. ORR and ICE have the discretion to expedite children’s cases even without a court order, and while these court proceedings unfold, community groups will continue pressuring detention facilities to release the children.
In considering the health and safety conditions of ORR and ICE facilities, the Court seemed unable to reconcile the fact that social distancing is not possible in detention. The Court ruled that ICE was “deficient” in nearly all of the CDC’s pandemic guidelines. However, the Court found that “ORR appears to be in substantial compliance” with its “obligations to implement CDC-compliant guidelines.” Judge Gee did not explain how the court found ORR to be compliant while stating that ORR “fails to address recommendations related to social distancing, personal hygiene, or personal protective equipment.” The Court also notes that ORR custody qualifies as “congregate care” under CDC guidelines and that congregate care “refers to settings where numerous people sleep, eat, bathe, and participate in daily activities in close quarters and, by definition, is incompatible with social distancing.” The Court does not reconcile how it can find ORR to be in “substantial compliance” while its facilities are “by definition” incompatible with one of the most important CDC recommendations, social distancing.
ORR and ICE have the discretion to expedite children’s cases even without a court order and community groups will continue pressuring detention facilities to release the children.
One surprising aspect of the Court’s March opinion was that it appeared to confirm truths accepted by community struggle but denied by immigration agencies: that children are being unnecessarily detained and remain in custody for longer than is justifiable even by their own rules. Consider this passage from Judge Gee’s March opinion (emphases added):
As of December 31, 2019, of the 4,562 minors still in custody at that time, nearly half of them had been in custody for less than 20 days, but 11.6 percent had been in custody for 31-60 days and – incredibly – 11.7 percent had been in custody for six months to one year … ORR’s data do not indicate why the agency failed to release these minors or how many of them have sponsors. Although … data from 2018 indicates that the vast majority of children in ORR’s care had close family members available as custodians, neither party has provided more updated information.
Judge Gee also noted that ORR’s “apparent failure” to document its reunification efforts made it difficult to ascertain how many releases were delayed “without good reason,” which would violate the law, prompting her demand for detailed justification for all children remaining in custody in ICE and ORR’s April 10 filings. Families of migrant children and their allies have pointed out for years that the majority of detained children have family already in the United States, that they could be reunited with these relatives quickly, and that this method of incarceration is unnecessary and cruel. Furthermore, detaining these children for longer times reaps information that benefits immigration enforcement but does not benefit the health and safety of the children. While Judge Gee does not echo those arguments, the data presented in the court opinion tells its own story and affirms certain truths that immigration officials continuously deny.
It is important to emphasize that these children are not detained because they have violated immigration law. All “unaccompanied” migrant children are detained automatically in mandatory, mass detention. While detained, the government investigates the children’s family to approve a “sponsor.” The child is then released to the sponsor to await their immigration trial (most qualify for asylum). It is the only form of incarceration in the U.S. that does not have bail – the only way for families to reunite is to cooperate with the investigation. However, the collected information is available to ICE’s deportation machinery. LVSN recently published testimony of a young man named José who was detained in ORR facilities for 322 days because he refused to cooperate with the investigation of his family. He would not provide any information to ORR, well aware of how it could be used, and stayed locked up until he turned 18. He was then transferred to an adult ICE prison and his family paid his bail immediately. “They just want to know anything they can get from you,” José said. “They ask you questions. And if you don’t answer, they tell you that you will not see your family. So, what they’re basically doing is blackmail.”
Because of stories like José’s, LVSN was keen to see how ORR and ICE would attempt to justify the cases of children who have been in custody for so long in their April 10 filings. Families and allies of the children can provide many reasons: According to former volunteers with Interfaith Community for Detained Immigrants, Muslim children are generally held longer than all other kids. A small percentage of children have no family or connections in the U.S. or have far more complicated cases. Children resist the investigation to protect their families. What would ICE and ORR say?
On April 10, ICE still refused to provide details on individual children’s circumstances, simply stating the number of children in custody and the fact that the remaining children were all subject to court dates. In Judge Gee’s response, the Court noted that, “ICE’s uniform perfunctory explanations for non-release seem to imply that a blanket prohibition on release exists” for children with pending court cases. According to Judge Gee, ICE did not address “what individualized parole determinations and continuous efforts to secure a minor’s release” ICE is undertaking in the circumstances of the pandemic.
Children are being unnecessarily detained and remain in custody for longer than is justifiable even by their own rules.
Meanwhile, ORR’s detailed documentation provided new information on their internal justification for continued detention. ORR’s reasons for non-release included that the agency has a blanket ban on releasing children to sponsors in New York, California and Washington State (although it was unclear if this policy had been extended to other states with shelter-in-place orders). Additionally, ORR issued a blanket ban on releasing children held in facilities with confirmed cases of COVID-19, despite the possibility of children quarantining safely at home. Finally, ORR has refused to adapt its fingerprinting and home inspection requirements to approve sponsors, despite the pandemic-related closure of fingerprinting facilities and suspension of home inspection visits. Judge Gee noted that both ICE’s “cursory and unsatisfactory efforts” and ORR’s “failure to adapt” present “several issues that may result in unnecessary delay of minors’ release” that may violate the law. However, these possible violations still may not guarantee the immediate freedom of the children after the Court’s April 24 ruling.
Communities resisting migrant child detention refuse to be idle while the court debates; the effects of COVID-19 are dire for the children. ProPublica recently released leaked emails confirming the largest outbreak of COVID-19 in a migrant child detention facility in Chicago, with 42 of 69 children in custody testing positive. LVSN visits this center frequently to advocate for immediate release and have taken photographs of children holding up signs reading “HELP” from the windows of the facility.
Little Village Solidarity Network
Children who are currently detained are also still expected to show up for their immigration court dates in person. Meanwhile, no new children are being taken into ORR/ICE custody; the Trump administration has used CDC guidelines to justify the immediate deportation of children who arrive at the border who would have otherwise been placed in these facilities.
These immediate deportations likely violate the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), a 2008 law that reinforced the mass detention of migrant children but also mandated more extensive legal counsel and other protections for children fleeing violence and abuse. In his recent Just Security exposé of the administration’s COVID deportations, Professor Lucas Guttentag of Stanford Law School writes, “The COVID border ban attempts to erect a shadow immigration system devoid of constitutional protections that erases fundamental statutory safeguards implementing refugee protection obligations.” He emphasizes that the TVPRA makes unaccompanied migrant children “entitled to procedural and humanitarian protections, including a determination of whether they fear return or are at risk of being subject to human trafficking,” and that “none of these mandates or requirements is addressed or respected in the CDC expulsion process.”
Community groups like LVSN will continue to put direct pressure on ORR and ICE facilities to expedite the release and reunification of the children. We will also continue to respond as ORR and ICE attempt to justify themselves, regardless of how the District Court rules after April 24. The court case is not the only terrain of struggle for the well-being of migrant children. We will continue to make our voices heard through direct action and public pressure until we achieve what the courts can’t or won’t – freedom for all migrant children.
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.


truthout--2020-04-24--Is Carbon Capture and Storage a Climate Solution or a Pyramid Scheme?

To a growing portion of the public , this is the existential question of our time : How do we significantly slash greenhouse gas emissions before it ’ s too late ?
Solar ?
Wind ?
Nuclear ?
Reforestation ?
How about carbon capture and storage ( CCS ) , what is in essence the process of separating carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) from the air , or from gases produced in electricity generation and industrial processes , then injecting the captured CO2 into geological rock formations typically located several kilometers underground ?
CCS features in three of the Intergovernmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IPCC ) four primary pathways to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius ( 1.5°C ) with no overshoot — a best-case scenario to protect the planet from the very worst impacts of climate change , but one we ’ re currently nowhere near meeting .
( Recent estimates put us on track for an increase of between 3-5°C by the end of the century . )
Indeed , operational CCS projects are capturing carbon at a rate far behind where it will need to be within decades to meet those global emission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how these technologies are , in many respects , still very much in the developmental stage , despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry has been using them since the 1970s .
Questions also surround just how meaningfully CCS technologies are currently contributing to carbon emission reductions .
For example , CCS is being used to funnel CO2 back underground to stimulate oil fields that are running dry , in a process called enhanced oil recovery ( EOR ) — a way , say CCS skeptics , not so much of reversing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the life-blood of the fossil fuel industry .
Strictly speaking , such technologies fall under the umbrella of carbon capture , utilization and storage , or CCUS .
“ In terms of the actual efficiency of carbon capture , it ’ s not nearly as effective as people claim it is , ” said Mark Jacobson , a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University who says anthropogenic global warming must be tackled by scaling up to 100 percent renewables as quickly as possible .
His own research into two CCS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions , found they trapped only between 10-11 percent of net carbon emissions averaged over 20 years .
“ It ’ s never better to capture carbon than it is to use that money to replace coal or gas , ” Jacobson said .
The underlying discrepancies at the heart of CCS have spilled out into the political arena .
In his Green New Deal outlined last year , former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders struck a red line through the possibility .
“ To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any false solutions like nuclear , geoengineering , carbon capture and sequestration , ” his proposal stated .
On the flip side of that coin , Joe Biden and former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg outlined plans that would accelerate development and deployment of CCS technologies .
“ Understandably , there are concerns around some of the ramifications from CCS , ” said Deepika Nagabhushan , director of the Clean Air Task Force ’ s ( CATF ) Decarbonized Fossil Energy program .
CATF co-signed a letter last year to the Senate advocating legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But the reality is that it would be very difficult – impossible , frankly — to meet some of these really ambitions temperature targets without exploring some of these technologies , ” said Nagabhushan .
According to the Global CCS Institute , there are 51 CCS facilities globally , 19 of which are in operation and 32 in various stages of development , including construction .
They include ammonia and ethanol production plants , as well as direct air-capture facilities .
The CATF also maintains a database of more than 20 publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax credit program , which is awarded to new CCS projects in the U.S .
The holy grail of CCS is in the energy sector , the single largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions , and the CATF ’ s list of CCS projects includes several at coal plants and natural gas retrofits .
As for what ’ s currently at play in the power sector , there are two large-scale CCUS power projects in operation in North America : the Petra Nova facility in Texas and the Boundary Dam plant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants .
But important questions hover over their overall carbon-capture efficiencies .
The Boundary Dam , for example , is designed to trap 1 million metric tons of CO2 a year , but has captured a total of only 2.2 million metric tons over four years , according to an Institute Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report from 2018 .
As for the Petra Nova plant , if broader factors — like the energy needed to power the carbon capture equipment and the extra oil generated through EOR — are calculated in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project could increase , rather than decrease , global CO2 emissions , ” the report claimed .
As coal is becoming increasingly uneconomic — at least relative to cleaner power resources — the potential use of CCS in the power sector should be primarily focused on natural gas , said Rachel Cleetus , policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists .
Nevertheless , a continued push toward natural gas — the U.S. Energy Information Administration announced natural gas consumption recently set a record high — comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she added .
“ Our view is that we really need to contain the surge to gas , otherwise we ’ re going to get locked into a pathway that will result in either a surge in emissions , CO2 and methane , or a lot of stranded assets in the natural gas sector , ” Cleetus said .
For this reason , the CCS projects of the future need not focus so much on the power sector as on a broad menu of heavy carbon-producing industries , said Cleetus .
“ Think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said , adding that right now , industrial CCS applications come with other concerns such as decreased efficiency and increased water usage .
“ We have proof of concept , but we ’ re still far from scaling up.
” Indeed , CCS will have to be scaled up fast for it to play its part in effectively curbing global warming .
The International Energy Agency ’ s ( IEA ) sustainable development scenario holds the global temperature rise to below 1.8 °C .
It ’ s also well within the trajectory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 providing a 50 percent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C .
This IEA sustainable development scenario requires that by 2030 , 350 million metric tons of CO2 ( MtCO2 ) is captured per year .
But system limitations mean that the CCS facilities currently in operation capture an estimated 96 MtCO2 per year only , according to the Global CCS Institute .
This is a little more than a quarter of where it needs to be within 10 years .
Zeroing in on individual facilities , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture 2.4 MtCO2 per year , according to the IEA .
Interestingly , there ’ s enough available geological space in the world ’ s nearshore continental margins — the shallowest parts of the ocean abutting the coastline — to hold enough greenhouse gas emissions to reach an IPCC goal of six to seven gigatons of sequestered carbon dioxide a year by 2050 , according to a study published last year in Nature Scientific Reports .
This could be achieved by drilling between 10,000 to 14,000 injection wells worldwide in the next 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , such a goal faces tremendous obstacles , not least of all the massive investments needed to develop and build the requisite infrastructure , including pipelines .
There would also have to be market incentives to persuade companies to trap and simply squirrel carbon away underground rather than using it for something like EOR .
That said , the CATF argues that EOR can act as a stepping stone toward such a goal .
“ Looking at the whole picture of what ’ s needed to achieve ambitious climate goals or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do have to find ways to commercialize CCS for hard-to-decarbonize sectors where possible , ” Cleetus said .
“ We also have to ensure strong legal , environmental and social safeguards for this technology.
” That CCS isn ’ t where it needs to be isn ’ t due to lack of investment — indeed , billions have been spent on carbon capture research and development over the years , some of it on expensive boondoggles .
The Bush administration greenlit in 2003 what was then a billion-dollar state-of-the-art coal gasification and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project in 2008 after massive cost overruns .
The Obama administration tried and failed to revive the project .
The most infamous , however , is the Kemper coal power plant in Mississippi , a $ 7.5 billion coal-gasification and carbon capture project that was abandoned after massive cost overruns and delays .
The plant is now the world ’ s most expensive natural gas power plant .
However , the project ’ s financial failures , CATF argues , was the result of trying to develop a “ first-of-a-kind ” coal-gasifier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon capture equipment installed on the plant.
” Indeed , CCS technologies will need road-testing through deployment for them to work more efficiently , said Nagabhushan .
“ Every project will be different , I can ’ t stress this enough , ” she said .
“ It depends on so many factors what costs that plant will incur.
” In that respect , the political pendulum appears to be swinging in CCS ’ s favor — at least in the near term .
A coalition of industry , labor and environmental groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 45Q tax credits , increasing the amount of federal money available to companies undertaking CCS or CCUS projects .
Individual states like California have woven CCS into their emissions reductions targets .
Meanwhile , carbon capture costs are decreasing .
According to the Energy Department , it cost $ 80 to capture a metric ton of carbon in 2012 .
Today , it costs around $ 50 per metric ton , while by 2030 , the projected cost is $ 30 .
Nevertheless , the urgency of the situation — greenhouse gas emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires a wholesale pivot away from fossil fuels .
“ You have biofuels .
Nuclear power .
Coal and carbon capture .
They all claim that they can do things , and all they need is another billion dollars to solve it , ” said Jacobson .
“ It becomes a part of what people assume is working , whereas really , it ’ s just a pyramid scheme .
”

To a growing portion of the public, this is the existential question of our time: How do we significantly slash greenhouse gas emissions before it’s too late?
Solar? Wind? Nuclear? Reforestation? How about carbon capture and storage (CCS), what is in essence the process of separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, or from gases produced in electricity generation and industrial processes, then injecting the captured CO2 into geological rock formations typically located several kilometers underground?
CCS features in three of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) four primary pathways to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C) with no overshoot — a best-case scenario to protect the planet from the very worst impacts of climate change, but one we’re currently nowhere near meeting. (Recent estimates put us on track for an increase of between 3-5°C by the end of the century.) Indeed, operational CCS projects are capturing carbon at a rate far behind where it will need to be within decades to meet those global emission reductions.
Part of the problem is how these technologies are, in many respects, still very much in the developmental stage, despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry has been using them since the 1970s. Questions also surround just how meaningfully CCS technologies are currently contributing to carbon emission reductions. For example, CCS is being used to funnel CO2 back underground to stimulate oil fields that are running dry, in a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR) — a way, say CCS skeptics, not so much of reversing course on global warming but of prolonging the life-blood of the fossil fuel industry. Strictly speaking, such technologies fall under the umbrella of carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS.
“In terms of the actual efficiency of carbon capture, it’s not nearly as effective as people claim it is,” said Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University who says anthropogenic global warming must be tackled by scaling up to 100 percent renewables as quickly as possible. His own research into two CCS projects, factoring in production and processing emissions, found they trapped only between 10-11 percent of net carbon emissions averaged over 20 years.
“It’s never better to capture carbon than it is to use that money to replace coal or gas,” Jacobson said.
The underlying discrepancies at the heart of CCS have spilled out into the political arena. In his Green New Deal outlined last year, former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders struck a red line through the possibility. “To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration,” his proposal stated. On the flip side of that coin, Joe Biden and former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg outlined plans that would accelerate development and deployment of CCS technologies.
Factoring in production and processing emissions, they trapped only between 10-11 percent of net carbon emissions averaged over 20 years.
“Understandably, there are concerns around some of the ramifications from CCS,” said Deepika Nagabhushan, director of the Clean Air Task Force’s (CATF) Decarbonized Fossil Energy program. CATF co-signed a letter last year to the Senate advocating legislation advancing the development of CCS projects.
“But the reality is that it would be very difficult – impossible, frankly — to meet some of these really ambitions temperature targets without exploring some of these technologies,” said Nagabhushan.
“Contain the Surge to Gas”
According to the Global CCS Institute, there are 51 CCS facilities globally, 19 of which are in operation and 32 in various stages of development, including construction. They include ammonia and ethanol production plants, as well as direct air-capture facilities. The CATF also maintains a database of more than 20 publicly announced projects as part of the 45Q tax credit program, which is awarded to new CCS projects in the U.S.
The holy grail of CCS is in the energy sector, the single largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the CATF’s list of CCS projects includes several at coal plants and natural gas retrofits. As for what’s currently at play in the power sector, there are two large-scale CCUS power projects in operation in North America: the Petra Nova facility in Texas and the Boundary Dam plant in Canada, both of them coal power plants. But important questions hover over their overall carbon-capture efficiencies.
The Boundary Dam, for example, is designed to trap 1 million metric tons of CO2 a year, but has captured a total of only 2.2 million metric tons over four years, according to an Institute Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report from 2018. As for the Petra Nova plant, if broader factors — like the energy needed to power the carbon capture equipment and the extra oil generated through EOR — are calculated in, “it is possible the Petra Nova project could increase, rather than decrease, global CO2 emissions,” the report claimed.
That CCS isn’t where it needs to be isn’t due to lack of investment — indeed, billions have been spent on carbon capture research and development over the years.
As coal is becoming increasingly uneconomic — at least relative to cleaner power resources — the potential use of CCS in the power sector should be primarily focused on natural gas, said Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Nevertheless, a continued push toward natural gas — the U.S. Energy Information Administration announced natural gas consumption recently set a record high — comes with its own set of problems, she added.
“Our view is that we really need to contain the surge to gas, otherwise we’re going to get locked into a pathway that will result in either a surge in emissions, CO2 and methane, or a lot of stranded assets in the natural gas sector,” Cleetus said.
For this reason, the CCS projects of the future need not focus so much on the power sector as on a broad menu of heavy carbon-producing industries, said Cleetus. “Think cement, iron and steel,” she said, adding that right now, industrial CCS applications come with other concerns such as decreased efficiency and increased water usage. “We have proof of concept, but we’re still far from scaling up.”
Indeed, CCS will have to be scaled up fast for it to play its part in effectively curbing global warming. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) sustainable development scenario holds the global temperature rise to below 1.8 °C. It’s also well within the trajectory of the various scenarios the IPCC proposed in 2018 providing a 50 percent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C.
This IEA sustainable development scenario requires that by 2030, 350 million metric tons of CO2 (MtCO2) is captured per year. But system limitations mean that the CCS facilities currently in operation capture an estimated 96 MtCO2 per year only, according to the Global CCS Institute. This is a little more than a quarter of where it needs to be within 10 years. Zeroing in on individual facilities, the Petra Nova and Boundary Dam plants combined capture 2.4 MtCO2 per year, according to the IEA.
Interestingly, there’s enough available geological space in the world’s nearshore continental margins — the shallowest parts of the ocean abutting the coastline — to hold enough greenhouse gas emissions to reach an IPCC goal of six to seven gigatons of sequestered carbon dioxide a year by 2050, according to a study published last year in Nature Scientific Reports. This could be achieved by drilling between 10,000 to 14,000 injection wells worldwide in the next 30 years, the report finds.
“They all claim that they can do things, and all they need is another billion dollars to solve it. It becomes a part of what people assume is working, whereas really, it’s just a pyramid scheme.”
Of course, such a goal faces tremendous obstacles, not least of all the massive investments needed to develop and build the requisite infrastructure, including pipelines. There would also have to be market incentives to persuade companies to trap and simply squirrel carbon away underground rather than using it for something like EOR. That said, the CATF argues that EOR can act as a stepping stone toward such a goal.
“Looking at the whole picture of what’s needed to achieve ambitious climate goals or to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, we do have to find ways to commercialize CCS for hard-to-decarbonize sectors where possible,” Cleetus said. “We also have to ensure strong legal, environmental and social safeguards for this technology.”
“It’s Just a Pyramid Scheme”
That CCS isn’t where it needs to be isn’t due to lack of investment — indeed, billions have been spent on carbon capture research and development over the years, some of it on expensive boondoggles. The Bush administration greenlit in 2003 what was then a billion-dollar state-of-the-art coal gasification and carbon capture facility, but cancelled the project in 2008 after massive cost overruns. The Obama administration tried and failed to revive the project.
The most infamous, however, is the Kemper coal power plant in Mississippi, a $7.5 billion coal-gasification and carbon capture project that was abandoned after massive cost overruns and delays. The plant is now the world’s most expensive natural gas power plant. However, the project’s financial failures, CATF argues, was the result of trying to develop a “first-of-a-kind” coal-gasifier, “which is completely separate from the carbon capture equipment installed on the plant.”
Indeed, CCS technologies will need road-testing through deployment for them to work more efficiently, said Nagabhushan. “Every project will be different, I can’t stress this enough,” she said. “It depends on so many factors what costs that plant will incur.”
In that respect, the political pendulum appears to be swinging in CCS’s favor — at least in the near term. A coalition of industry, labor and environmental groups recently pushed successful legislation that revamped the 45Q tax credits, increasing the amount of federal money available to companies undertaking CCS or CCUS projects. Individual states like California have woven CCS into their emissions reductions targets. Meanwhile, carbon capture costs are decreasing. According to the Energy Department, it cost $80 to capture a metric ton of carbon in 2012. Today, it costs around $50 per metric ton, while by 2030, the projected cost is $30.
Nevertheless, the urgency of the situation — greenhouse gas emissions hit a record high last year — requires a wholesale pivot away from fossil fuels. “You have biofuels. Nuclear power. Coal and carbon capture. They all claim that they can do things, and all they need is another billion dollars to solve it,” said Jacobson. “It becomes a part of what people assume is working, whereas really, it’s just a pyramid scheme.”
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.


truthout--2020-04-25--Trump Demands Postal Service Increase Prices Fourfold for Customers

President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to withhold all future COVID-19 relief funding from the U.S .
Postal Service unless the federal agency dramatically raises its shipping prices — a demand that critics say is ludicrous given the economic calamity the American people and the post office are now facing .
After U.S. Secretary Steven Mnuchin fielded a question about relief funding for USPS from a reporter at the White House during a bill signing ceremony Friday , Trump declared that “ the Postal Service is a joke , because they ’ re handing out packages for Amazon and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring a package they lose money on it.
” “ The post office should raise the price of a package by approximately four times , ” the president added .
“ Four or five times , that ’ s what it should be — or let Amazon build their own post office , which would be an impossible thing to do , because the post office is massive and serves every little piece of the country.
” Trump accused USPS of refusing to raise package prices “ because they don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to insult other companies perhaps that they like.
” He also said the agency “ should raise the price of the packages to the companies , not to the people.
” Critics quickly responded to Trump ’ s comments with warnings about how a price hike could impact both the USPS and consumers .
“ At a time when millions of Americans are stuck at home and can ’ t work , Trump is demanding what is basically a tax hike on mail , ” tweeted the The Atlantic staff writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns and job losses .
Other critics accused Trump of trying to destroy the USPS “ to suppress mail-in votes.
” The public health crisis has sparked calls to rapidly and significantly expand vote-by-mail nationwide to ensure that everyone can safely participate in future elections .
Trump has baselessly attacked mail-in voting as insecure .
The president tweeted Friday afternoon : “ I will never let our Post Office fail .
It has been mismanaged for years , especially since the advent of the internet and modern-day technology .
The people that work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to keep them happy , healthy , and well !
” The USPS , for its part , recently reiterated its policy of delivering absentee and mail-in ballots “ even if no postage has been affixed or if the postage is insufficient.
” That statement on Wednesday was widely welcomed , with people across the country thanking the agency for “ working to save democracy.
” U.S. Mail Not for Sale , a worker-led campaign sponsored by the American Postal Workers Union and the National Association of Letter Carriers , circulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ urgent and ongoing financial support from the federal government during this public health and economic crisis.
” The Postal Service — already under financial duress due to a 2006 congressional mandate requiring the agency to fund retirees ’ health benefits through 2056 — warned earlier this month that without an infusion of cash , the agency could soon face a complete collapse due to revenue loss related to the coronavirus pandemic .
The president ’ s comments from the Oval Office came after the Post reported on Thursday night that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressionally approved loan to force changes at the Postal Service .
That loan was part of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act Trump signed last month .
Mnuchin , who has to sign off on the loan to USPS , confirmed to reporters at the White House that the administration will impose certain criteria , though he declined to share details .
Trump , however , jumped in and said , “ if they don ’ t raise the price , I ’ m not signing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to do anything , Steve.
” Sen. Bernie Sanders shared the Post ’ s reporting on Twitter and declared that “ it is disgusting that Trump would exploit this pandemic ” to force changes at USPS .
Sanders on Tuesday hosted a virtual town hall with the leaders of the nation ’ s top postal unions to discuss how to save USPS .

The president is threatening to withhold future COVID-19 relief from the USPS unless it raises shipping prices.
President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to withhold all future COVID-19 relief funding from the U.S. Postal Service unless the federal agency dramatically raises its shipping prices — a demand that critics say is ludicrous given the economic calamity the American people and the post office are now facing.
After U.S. Secretary Steven Mnuchin fielded a question about relief funding for USPS from a reporter at the White House during a bill signing ceremony Friday, Trump declared that “the Postal Service is a joke, because they’re handing out packages for Amazon and other internet companies, and every time they bring a package they lose money on it.”
“The post office should raise the price of a package by approximately four times,” the president added. “Four or five times, that’s what it should be — or let Amazon build their own post office, which would be an impossible thing to do, because the post office is massive and serves every little piece of the country.”
Trump accused USPS of refusing to raise package prices “because they don’t want to insult Amazon and they don’t want to insult other companies perhaps that they like.” He also said the agency “should raise the price of the packages to the companies, not to the people.”
As the Washington Post reported Friday:
Trump and his allies have frequently claimed that higher package rates on internet shipping companies—Amazon, in particular—could ease the Postal Service’s financial troubles. But higher package rates could hurt the agency by artificially raising its prices above those of United Parcel Service and FedEx, analysts say. Higher prices also could impact Amazon, which acts as both retailer and shipper, by forcing it pass off higher costs on its customers to compete.
Critics quickly responded to Trump’s comments with warnings about how a price hike could impact both the USPS and consumers.
“At a time when millions of Americans are stuck at home and can’t work, Trump is demanding what is basically a tax hike on mail,” tweeted the The Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer, referencing the ongoing coronavirus-related lockdowns and job losses.
Mail Fail: Mad Don Demands Post Office Take More Of YOUR Money subhed: Heartless cash grab as homebound, jobless Americans can't even order from Amazon in peace.https://t.co/RoTHTVmq13 — Oliver Willis (@owillis) April 24, 2020
Donald Trump is trying to force the postal service to QUADRUPLE package delivery prices. That would be a disaster for millions of Americans who rely on USPS, especially seniors and people with disabilities: https://t.co/NkIjX6HM6u #SaveThePostOffice — SocialSecurityWorks (@SSWorks) April 24, 2020
Other critics accused Trump of trying to destroy the USPS “to suppress mail-in votes.” The public health crisis has sparked calls to rapidly and significantly expand vote-by-mail nationwide to ensure that everyone can safely participate in future elections. Trump has baselessly attacked mail-in voting as insecure.
The president tweeted Friday afternoon: “I will never let our Post Office fail. It has been mismanaged for years, especially since the advent of the internet and modern-day technology. The people that work there are great, and we’re going to keep them happy, healthy, and well!”
The USPS, for its part, recently reiterated its policy of delivering absentee and mail-in ballots “even if no postage has been affixed or if the postage is insufficient.” That statement on Wednesday was widely welcomed, with people across the country thanking the agency for “working to save democracy.”
U.S. Mail Not for Sale, a worker-led campaign sponsored by the American Postal Workers Union and the National Association of Letter Carriers, circulated a petition urging Congress to provide USPS with “urgent and ongoing financial support from the federal government during this public health and economic crisis.”
"The Post Office should raise the price of a package by approximately four times." @realDonaldTrump's message to seniors, veterans, rural communities and millions of Americans who rely on the Postal Service #SaveThePostOffice #SaveTheUSPS pic.twitter.com/KfQ15TjxhT — usmailnotforsale (@usmailnot4sale) April 24, 2020
The Postal Service — already under financial duress due to a 2006 congressional mandate requiring the agency to fund retirees’ health benefits through 2056 — warned earlier this month that without an infusion of cash, the agency could soon face a complete collapse due to revenue loss related to the coronavirus pandemic.
The president’s comments from the Oval Office came after the Post reported on Thursday night that Trump was considering using a $10 billion congressionally approved loan to force changes at the Postal Service. That loan was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Trump signed last month.
Mnuchin, who has to sign off on the loan to USPS, confirmed to reporters at the White House that the administration will impose certain criteria, though he declined to share details. Trump, however, jumped in and said, “if they don’t raise the price, I’m not signing anything… and I’m not authorizing you to do anything, Steve.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders shared the Post’s reporting on Twitter and declared that “it is disgusting that Trump would exploit this pandemic” to force changes at USPS.
It is disgusting that Trump would exploit this pandemic to bust postal unions and privatize the most popular government agency in America. If we can bail out large corporations, we can damn well save the Postal Service and protect these essential jobs. https://t.co/ObYKqnqPsS — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 24, 2020
Sanders on Tuesday hosted a virtual town hall with the leaders of the nation’s top postal unions to discuss how to save USPS.
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--2020-04-25--Millions of People Will Face Stimulus Check Delays Simply Because They Are Poor

Last week , a group of angry and desperate Citi Tax Financial customers gathered outside the company ’ s storefront in Augusta , Georgia .
Millions of Americans had received a big deposit from the IRS in their bank accounts , but they had not .
The IRS website told them their coronavirus stimulus checks were deposited in an account they didn ’ t recognize .
With an officer from the Richmond County Sheriff ’ s Office beside him and another officer shouting for people to be quiet , the tax preparation company ’ s owner told the crowd of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom wore masks , that he didn ’ t have their money .
Because of the baroque machinery that runs the tax preparation industry , the IRS had sent the money to a bank Citi Tax works with but the customers had not heard of .
That bank sent the payments back to the IRS .
Citi Tax ’ s clients — just like some clients of big tax brands such as H & R Block , Jackson Hewitt and TurboTax — didn ’ t get their money for the very reason Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place : They are poor .
The Georgia customers , almost all black women , are among the likely millions of Americans who are having trouble getting the stimulus funds they are owed .
The IRS ’ difficulty in swiftly getting payments to Americans has a basic , root cause : There are multiple private actors sitting between the IRS and tax filers .
“ Because we have an entire industry that survives on — and is a huge force in maintaining — this system in which they are third-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delays and complications , ” said Chi Chi Wu , an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center .
The stimulus problems are part of a constellation of pain faced by the poor in accessing CARES Act money , from the possibility that banks could seize the money to pay off debts to advocates ’ fear that , when paper checks arrive , the check-cashing industry will snatch a hefty chunk .
The tax prep business is built on a complex infrastructure designed to extract fees that many customers can not afford .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system to speedily get cash to its citizens , it ran into big problems .
The IRS estimates that it will send the $ 292 billion in CARES Act money to 171 million Americans .
The first wave of payments sent out last week was targeted to less than half of those eligible : 80 million Americans whose 2018 or 2019 tax refunds had been directly deposited .
To disburse most of the remaining payments , the agency is planning to mail 81 million paper checks bearing the president ’ s name , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But for a large portion of the 80 million people the IRS tried to reach last week , “ direct deposit ” is a bit of a misnomer .
Each year , the tax refunds of more than 20 million Americans , including many of Citi Tax ’ s customers , take a detour .
These customers don ’ t pay their tax preparation fees upfront , instead opting to have the fee taken out of their refund .
Because regulations prohibit tax prep companies from receiving refunds directly , a special , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plays the middleman .
The bank takes out whatever fees are owed and then passes the remainder on to the customer .
Now some of these waystation banks are sending the checks back to the IRS , saying in public statements they received them by mistake , causing significant confusion and delays .
And it ’ s possible that some of these banks will extract fees before the stimulus money makes its way to those the government was trying to help .
Citi Tax customers aren ’ t the only ones facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about stimulus payment problems last Friday evening , around 1,400 responses flooded in .
People told us about madly refreshing the Get My Payment page from the IRS and calling their banks and tax preparers .
Some said they needed the money for food .
Some said they had been notified that payments went to accounts they didn ’ t recognize .
Others said they ’ d been told they had been paid , but the money hadn ’ t arrived .
“ My daughter and I are starving here , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelter .
I don ’ t know what we ’ re going to do if we don ’ t get this now , ” said Aaron Buckels , a cashier in Crawfordsville , Indiana .
Like many others who wrote in , Buckels depends on his tax refund every year .
He was eligible to file his taxes for free .
Not knowing that , he did his taxes through TurboTax , which charged him $ 80 , according to his receipt .
He was unable to afford that upfront .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , for TurboTax to use his refund to pay what he owed the company for preparing his return .
When it came to receiving what remained of his refund , Buckels chose to have it deposited on a debit card , an option heavily promoted by TurboTax .
The company pitches the Turbo Card option as a way to get refunds “ fast ” — but the fine print reveals that it ’ s only faster than a paper check .
It also comes with additional charges , including a $ 4.95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the IRS was going to send Buckels ’ stimulus money , according to the agency ’ s Get My Payment page .
But the funds haven ’ t arrived .
Buckels was one of more than 50 TurboTax users who got both a refund transfer and a Turbo Card who told ProPublica they ’ d yet to receive their payments .
It ’ s still not clear where the breakdown occurred between the IRS , the bank that handled the refund transfer and the debit card .
Despite numerous customer complaints about delays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rick Heineman , said , “ These are TurboTax customers and needed stimulus payments , so our actions reflect our efforts to deliver the funds to accounts as quickly as possible with no delay and no fees.
” He added that , “ The IRS is ultimately responsible for determining how and when the stimulus payments will be delivered to Americans.
” Refund transfers are a cornerstone of the tax prep industry ’ s business model .
Because low-income filers often do not have enough money on hand to pay high preparation fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively front them money .
A low-income , single mother with two children pays about $ 360 to have her taxes prepared at H & R Block , according to a company pricing chart .
With a refund transfer ( $ 40 ) , the toll rises to $ 400 .
The equivalent cost at Jackson Hewitt , the second largest chain , would be $ 610 , according to an estimate provided by a company employee .
Such a customer can probably expect a tax refund in the thousands of dollars because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dull the pain of giving up several hundred dollars for tax prep help .
Refund transfers are very common across the industry .
For example , almost half the customers at Liberty Tax , the third-largest chain , get a refund transfer .
They are most common among taxpayers with income between $ 10,000 and $ 25,000 , according to IRS statistics .
Refund transfers are also often sold with other products .
Those include promotional cards that come with fees of their own .
H & R Block ’ s Emerald Card @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refund.
” But it charges users $ 1.50 to check their balance ; $ 3 for an ATM withdrawal ; a $ 4.95 “ inactivity ” fee ; and $ 35 to cash out the card at a bank .
Last year H & R Block reported $ 268 million in revenue from refund transfer and prepaid debit fees .
Consumer advocates argue transfers are predatory because they are essentially loans with effective annual interest rates over 200 % : $ 40 to $ 60 in finance charges just for deferring the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes for a refund to arrive .
And although the fees are generally disclosed to taxpayers , ProPublica has heard from dozens of taxpayers who didn ’ t understand why they were being charged or what the transfer meant .
Over the past week , the transfers emerged as a major problem for a different reason .
For most taxpayers who got a refund transfer , the IRS seems to have been tripped up because it had information for two accounts , the middleman ’ s and the final destination , instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a challenge for the IRS , which Congress has gutted with budget cuts over the past 10 years .
In a statement to ProPublica , an H & R Block spokesperson pointed the finger at the government .
The IRS has “ created confusion by not always using clients ’ final destination bank account information for stimulus payments , ” the spokesperson said .
“ We share our clients ’ frustration that many of them have not yet received these much-needed payments due to IRS decisions , and we are actively working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly to client accounts.
” In a new FAQ on the IRS website , the agency confirmed that , “ In some cases , your Economic Impact Payment may have been directed to the bank account associated with the refund settlement product or prepaid debit card.
” Confusing matters even more , the agency said that there was an error on its Get My Payment website , which “ inaccurately indicated rejected payments were being sent back to the same taxpayer account a second time.
” In fact , those payments would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Among the filers affected by this additional glitch were customers of MetaBank .
The publicly traded South Dakota-based firm provides refund transfers for independent tax prep storefronts like Citi Tax in Augusta .
The IRS wrongly sent about 300,000 payments to MetaBank ’ s temporary accounts , according to one of the bank ’ s tax prep partners .
Many customers say they are still waiting for their stimulus money .
The bank said in a statement it is “ deeply concerned ” by the delays and referred users to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the industry in many ways .
Refund transfers are most common in the South and particularly in counties with large black populations .
Richmond County , where Citi Tax is located , is majority black and about a third of taxpayers there with income under $ 25,000 get a refund transfer , according to IRS data .
The transfers tend to accompany returns involving the earned income tax credit , one of the country ’ s largest antipoverty programs and one primarily targeted at low-income workers with children .
This helps explain why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
Citi Tax is also a prime example of an industry that is largely unregulated .
The store used to be part of the Instant Tax chain — once the fourth-largest tax prep chain in the U.S. until it was shut down in 2013 for what a Justice Department attorney called “ an astonishing array of repeated fraudulent and deceptive conduct.
” Under the same owner , Yonathan Michael , the Instant Tax location simply changed names and continued on .
Michael himself has been hit with over $ 90,000 in penalties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed against him over the last three years .
But the IRS lacks the authority to prevent Michael from continuing to prepare hundreds of returns each year simply because of such violations .
Michael did not respond to questions from ProPublica .
Even after more than a week of confusion , many tax filers still do not have their checks and it ’ s unclear precisely which part of the system ’ s machinery broke down .
On Reddit and Facebook , frustrated tax filers looking for answers have created groups like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H & R Block stimulus group ” that have ballooned in recent days .
Some people who wrote to ProPublica have been told to expect paper checks , despite their wish to get direct deposit .
Others continue to get a payment status unknown message from the IRS website .
And adding to the mess , the banks that process refund transfers are handling the problems differently .
Some say they ’ ve sent payments back to the IRS , some say they will mail taxpayers checks themselves , and still others say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Santa Barbara Tax Products Group , a subsidiary of the publicly traded Green Dot Corporation , suggests on its website that fees may be taken out of stimulus payments in some cases .
“ In the rare event that payments are inadvertently sent to [ Santa Barbara ] , a plan is in place to help identify and expedite the return of these payments immediately to the IRS so that the IRS can reissue payments directly to affected taxpayers as soon as possible , ” the statement says .
“ If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Economic Impact Payment , the deposit will be processed as a federal refund , with all associated fees withheld from the deposit amount.
” Santa Barbara is the largest processor of refund transfers , handling them for several tax prep brands , including TurboTax .
An Intuit spokesman said its customers would not be charged fees .

The tax preparation industry, which survives off of high fees on its customers, is getting in the way of stimulus funds.
Last week, a group of angry and desperate Citi Tax Financial customers gathered outside the company’s storefront in Augusta, Georgia. Millions of Americans had received a big deposit from the IRS in their bank accounts, but they had not. The IRS website told them their coronavirus stimulus checks were deposited in an account they didn’t recognize.
With an officer from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office beside him and another officer shouting for people to be quiet, the tax preparation company’s owner told the crowd of about 60, only a few of whom wore masks, that he didn’t have their money.
Because of the baroque machinery that runs the tax preparation industry, the IRS had sent the money to a bank Citi Tax works with but the customers had not heard of. That bank sent the payments back to the IRS.
Citi Tax’s clients — just like some clients of big tax brands such as H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and TurboTax — didn’t get their money for the very reason Congress wanted to get money to them quickly in the first place: They are poor. The Georgia customers, almost all black women, are among the likely millions of Americans who are having trouble getting the stimulus funds they are owed. The IRS’ difficulty in swiftly getting payments to Americans has a basic, root cause: There are multiple private actors sitting between the IRS and tax filers.
“Because we have an entire industry that survives on — and is a huge force in maintaining — this system in which they are third-party intermediaries, you end up with these delays and complications,” said Chi Chi Wu, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
The stimulus problems are part of a constellation of pain faced by the poor in accessing CARES Act money, from the possibility that banks could seize the money to pay off debts to advocates’ fear that, when paper checks arrive, the check-cashing industry will snatch a hefty chunk.
The tax prep business is built on a complex infrastructure designed to extract fees that many customers cannot afford. When the government tried to navigate that system to speedily get cash to its citizens, it ran into big problems.
The IRS estimates that it will send the $292 billion in CARES Act money to 171 million Americans. The first wave of payments sent out last week was targeted to less than half of those eligible: 80 million Americans whose 2018 or 2019 tax refunds had been directly deposited. To disburse most of the remaining payments, the agency is planning to mail 81 million paper checks bearing the president’s name, according to an IRS budget document.
But for a large portion of the 80 million people the IRS tried to reach last week, “direct deposit” is a bit of a misnomer. Each year, the tax refunds of more than 20 million Americans, including many of Citi Tax’s customers, take a detour. These customers don’t pay their tax preparation fees upfront, instead opting to have the fee taken out of their refund. Because regulations prohibit tax prep companies from receiving refunds directly, a special, temporary account is created at a bank that plays the middleman. The bank takes out whatever fees are owed and then passes the remainder on to the customer.
Now some of these waystation banks are sending the checks back to the IRS, saying in public statements they received them by mistake, causing significant confusion and delays. And it’s possible that some of these banks will extract fees before the stimulus money makes its way to those the government was trying to help.
Citi Tax customers aren’t the only ones facing problems. After ProPublica posted a questionnaire about stimulus payment problems last Friday evening, around 1,400 responses flooded in. People told us about madly refreshing the Get My Payment page from the IRS and calling their banks and tax preparers. Some said they needed the money for food. Some said they had been notified that payments went to accounts they didn’t recognize. Others said they’d been told they had been paid, but the money hadn’t arrived.
“My daughter and I are starving here, and we don’t have much of a shelter. I don’t know what we’re going to do if we don’t get this now,” said Aaron Buckels, a cashier in Crawfordsville, Indiana.
Like many others who wrote in, Buckels depends on his tax refund every year. He was eligible to file his taxes for free. Not knowing that, he did his taxes through TurboTax, which charged him $80, according to his receipt.
He was unable to afford that upfront. So, he paid another fee, $40 more, for TurboTax to use his refund to pay what he owed the company for preparing his return. When it came to receiving what remained of his refund, Buckels chose to have it deposited on a debit card, an option heavily promoted by TurboTax. The company pitches the Turbo Card option as a way to get refunds “fast” — but the fine print reveals that it’s only faster than a paper check. It also comes with additional charges, including a $4.95 monthly fee.
That’s where the IRS was going to send Buckels’ stimulus money, according to the agency’s Get My Payment page. But the funds haven’t arrived. Buckels was one of more than 50 TurboTax users who got both a refund transfer and a Turbo Card who told ProPublica they’d yet to receive their payments. It’s still not clear where the breakdown occurred between the IRS, the bank that handled the refund transfer and the debit card.
Despite numerous customer complaints about delays, a spokesman for TurboTax-maker Intuit, Rick Heineman, said, “These are TurboTax customers and needed stimulus payments, so our actions reflect our efforts to deliver the funds to accounts as quickly as possible with no delay and no fees.” He added that, “The IRS is ultimately responsible for determining how and when the stimulus payments will be delivered to Americans.”
Refund transfers are a cornerstone of the tax prep industry’s business model. Because low-income filers often do not have enough money on hand to pay high preparation fees, the companies need a way to effectively front them money.
A low-income, single mother with two children pays about $360 to have her taxes prepared at H&R Block, according to a company pricing chart. With a refund transfer ($40), the toll rises to $400. The equivalent cost at Jackson Hewitt, the second largest chain, would be $610, according to an estimate provided by a company employee.
Such a customer can probably expect a tax refund in the thousands of dollars because of antipoverty tax credits, which helps dull the pain of giving up several hundred dollars for tax prep help. Refund transfers are very common across the industry. For example, almost half the customers at Liberty Tax, the third-largest chain, get a refund transfer. They are most common among taxpayers with income between $10,000 and $25,000, according to IRS statistics.
Refund transfers are also often sold with other products. Those include promotional cards that come with fees of their own. H&R Block’s Emerald Card promises “easy access to your tax refund.” But it charges users $1.50 to check their balance; $3 for an ATM withdrawal; a $4.95 “inactivity” fee; and $35 to cash out the card at a bank. Last year H&R Block reported $268 million in revenue from refund transfer and prepaid debit fees.
Consumer advocates argue transfers are predatory because they are essentially loans with effective annual interest rates over 200%: $40 to $60 in finance charges just for deferring the tax prep cost by the few weeks it takes for a refund to arrive. And although the fees are generally disclosed to taxpayers, ProPublica has heard from dozens of taxpayers who didn’t understand why they were being charged or what the transfer meant.
Over the past week, the transfers emerged as a major problem for a different reason. For most taxpayers who got a refund transfer, the IRS seems to have been tripped up because it had information for two accounts, the middleman’s and the final destination, instead of one. That complication has apparently been a challenge for the IRS, which Congress has gutted with budget cuts over the past 10 years.
The IRS didn’t respond to questions.
In a statement to ProPublica, an H&R Block spokesperson pointed the finger at the government. The IRS has “created confusion by not always using clients’ final destination bank account information for stimulus payments,” the spokesperson said. “We share our clients’ frustration that many of them have not yet received these much-needed payments due to IRS decisions, and we are actively working with the IRS to get stimulus payments sent directly to client accounts.”
In a new FAQ on the IRS website, the agency confirmed that, “In some cases, your Economic Impact Payment may have been directed to the bank account associated with the refund settlement product or prepaid debit card.”
Confusing matters even more, the agency said that there was an error on its Get My Payment website, which “inaccurately indicated rejected payments were being sent back to the same taxpayer account a second time.” In fact, those payments would be mailed to tax filers, the agency said.
Among the filers affected by this additional glitch were customers of MetaBank. The publicly traded South Dakota-based firm provides refund transfers for independent tax prep storefronts like Citi Tax in Augusta. The IRS wrongly sent about 300,000 payments to MetaBank’s temporary accounts, according to one of the bank’s tax prep partners. Many customers say they are still waiting for their stimulus money. The bank said in a statement it is “deeply concerned” by the delays and referred users to the IRS.
Citi Tax is typical of the industry in many ways. Refund transfers are most common in the South and particularly in counties with large black populations. Richmond County, where Citi Tax is located, is majority black and about a third of taxpayers there with income under $25,000 get a refund transfer, according to IRS data. The transfers tend to accompany returns involving the earned income tax credit, one of the country’s largest antipoverty programs and one primarily targeted at low-income workers with children. This helps explain why the crowd outside Citi Tax was largely women.
Citi Tax is also a prime example of an industry that is largely unregulated. The store used to be part of the Instant Tax chain — once the fourth-largest tax prep chain in the U.S. until it was shut down in 2013 for what a Justice Department attorney called “an astonishing array of repeated fraudulent and deceptive conduct.”
Under the same owner, Yonathan Michael, the Instant Tax location simply changed names and continued on. Michael himself has been hit with over $90,000 in penalties by the IRS, according to liens filed against him over the last three years. But the IRS lacks the authority to prevent Michael from continuing to prepare hundreds of returns each year simply because of such violations. Michael did not respond to questions from ProPublica.
Even after more than a week of confusion, many tax filers still do not have their checks and it’s unclear precisely which part of the system’s machinery broke down. On Reddit and Facebook, frustrated tax filers looking for answers have created groups like “justice for Metabank Customers” and “H&R Block stimulus group” that have ballooned in recent days.
Some people who wrote to ProPublica have been told to expect paper checks, despite their wish to get direct deposit. Others continue to get a payment status unknown message from the IRS website. And adding to the mess, the banks that process refund transfers are handling the problems differently. Some say they’ve sent payments back to the IRS, some say they will mail taxpayers checks themselves, and still others say they will send payments electronically.
Additionally, Santa Barbara Tax Products Group, a subsidiary of the publicly traded Green Dot Corporation, suggests on its website that fees may be taken out of stimulus payments in some cases.
“In the rare event that payments are inadvertently sent to [Santa Barbara], a plan is in place to help identify and expedite the return of these payments immediately to the IRS so that the IRS can reissue payments directly to affected taxpayers as soon as possible,” the statement says. “If we are unable to identify the payment as an Economic Impact Payment, the deposit will be processed as a federal refund, with all associated fees withheld from the deposit amount.”
Santa Barbara is the largest processor of refund transfers, handling them for several tax prep brands, including TurboTax. An Intuit spokesman said its customers would not be charged fees.
Hannah Fresques contributed reporting.
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--2020-04-25--Reopening Economies Will Worsen the Spread of COVID-19 Through the Rural South

In the rural South , the COVID-19 pandemic is becoming a silent disaster .
As rural residents commute to jobs in cities and transportation hubs , they ’ re being exposed to the virus and bringing it home to a population already at risk .
Chronic diseases that can lead to more severe COVID-19 symptoms are common across the rural South .
The population is older and poorer than much of the country , and the health care system has been deteriorating for years as hospitals lose staff and close .
Despite the population ’ s vulnerability , Southern states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal and international recommendations around COVID-19 protective measures .
Most of the states ’ delays and refusals to enact “ shelter-at-home ” policies were tied to economic arguments .
Now , governors are using the same economic reasons for loosening those restrictions .
Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp called for reopening several types of businesses including hair salons starting Friday and restaurants and even theaters starting Monday , despite concerns from public health officials .
Mississippi is also considering lifting its shelter-at-home orders for economic reasons .
When that happens , service workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will find themselves at greater risk .
As University of Mississippi sociologists who work with rural communities on a range of resilience issues , especially health , we are concerned about the economic and health consequences of returning to business before the region is prepared to protect its residents .
Rural areas may seem isolated from the coronavirus threat , but in the South , one in 12 rural residents commutes to an urban hub for work .
Many of those jobs are on the front lines of health care and service industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to avoid .
In much of the South , “ shelter-at-home ” orders have had loose interpretations of “ essential personnel ” who are exempted from the order .
They include employees in high-exposure jobs – cashiers , fast food workers and registered nurses , all among the largest employment areas for Southern states .
Many of these workers are less likely to have sick leave or be able to work from home .
And they are paid lower wages , so many still go to work even when they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some exposure while restaurants shifted to drive-through operations and social distancing was encouraged .
However , if other Southern states follow Georgia ’ s lead and begin lifting their current protections , workers ’ chances of being exposed to someone infectious with the coronavirus rise .
Mississippi ’ s rural infection numbers stand out in particular : 62 % of the state ’ s coronavirus cases as of mid-April were in rural counties , and the state had counted more than 200 deaths .
Rural infection rates were higher than in urban areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 128 in urban counties .
The South as a whole had more urban cases , but still a high rural infection rate .
Southern states are already scrambling to manage both detection of coronavirus cases and treatment of the disease .
Their testing capacity , essential to controlling the pandemic , has been increasing but remains sporadic and well below the national average .
Access to care is increasingly difficult .
Mississippi has just over 400 ICU beds in its largest hospital service area , Jackson .
Currently , 100 of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs for rural ICU beds will double to more than 800 in the next six months under moderate coronavirus infection projections .
Ventilators are an even bigger concern .
University of Mississippi Medical Center has only about 125 to 150 ventilators in its facilities , and officials estimate 40 % to half are in use on any given day .
The rural South ’ s health profile adds to the risk .
The region has higher rates of chronic medical conditions that have been found to significantly increase the likelihood that a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
Among the first 159 people to die from COVID-19 in Mississippi , over half had cardiovascular disease , over 40 % had diabetes or high blood pressure , and one-third were obese .
Much of the care for these patients is being delivered through a shrinking rural health care system .
Of the 128 rural hospital closures across the country in the last 10 years , over half were in the South .
The pandemic has created more financial troubles for rural hospitals as nonessential procedures have been postponed .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning residents don ’ t have enough doctors , even if they have access to a health care facility .
In the short term , Southern states need to increase their testing for coronavirus cases .
Per capita , the South administered about 20 % fewer tests .
Many southern states currently rely on pop-up testing at sites temporarily opened in locations where other facilities are not available .
Permanent , well-stocked testing centers would help residents know where to go .
In the long-term , these states need to invest in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmacies are essential to reducing long-term risk among rural Southerners , particularly those with chronic health conditions .
They are also important “ economic anchors ” for their communities .
According to the American Hospital Association statistics , every dollar spent by a hospital supports US $ 2.30 of additional business activity within the community and hospitals are a top source of private sector jobs .

Rural residents will be increasingly exposed to the virus if they are forced to resume commutes to jobs in urban areas.
In the rural South, the COVID-19 pandemic is becoming a silent disaster.
As rural residents commute to jobs in cities and transportation hubs, they’re being exposed to the virus and bringing it home to a population already at risk.
Chronic diseases that can lead to more severe COVID-19 symptoms are common across the rural South. The population is older and poorer than much of the country, and the health care system has been deteriorating for years as hospitals lose staff and close.
Despite the population’s vulnerability, Southern states have been a stronghold of resistance to federal and international recommendations around COVID-19 protective measures. Most of the states’ delays and refusals to enact “shelter-at-home” policies were tied to economic arguments.
Now, governors are using the same economic reasons for loosening those restrictions. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called for reopening several types of businesses including hair salons starting Friday and restaurants and even theaters starting Monday, despite concerns from public health officials. Mississippi is also considering lifting its shelter-at-home orders for economic reasons. When that happens, service workers, once partially protected from exposure, will find themselves at greater risk.
As University of Mississippi sociologists who work with rural communities on a range of resilience issues, especially health, we are concerned about the economic and health consequences of returning to business before the region is prepared to protect its residents.
Rural Commuters on the Urban Front Lines
Rural areas may seem isolated from the coronavirus threat, but in the South, one in 12 rural residents commutes to an urban hub for work. Many of those jobs are on the front lines of health care and service industries, where exposure to other people is hard to avoid.
In much of the South, “shelter-at-home” orders have had loose interpretations of “essential personnel” who are exempted from the order. They include employees in high-exposure jobs – cashiers, fast food workers and registered nurses, all among the largest employment areas for Southern states. Many of these workers are less likely to have sick leave or be able to work from home. And they are paid lower wages, so many still go to work even when they’re sick.
These workers have been saved some exposure while restaurants shifted to drive-through operations and social distancing was encouraged. However, if other Southern states follow Georgia’s lead and begin lifting their current protections, workers’ chances of being exposed to someone infectious with the coronavirus rise.
Mississippi’s rural infection numbers stand out in particular: 62% of the state’s coronavirus cases as of mid-April were in rural counties, and the state had counted more than 200 deaths. Rural infection rates were higher than in urban areas: 181 cases per 100,000 people compared to 128 in urban counties. The South as a whole had more urban cases, but still a high rural infection rate.
The South Isn’t Prepared for a COVID-19 surge
Southern states are already scrambling to manage both detection of coronavirus cases and treatment of the disease. Their testing capacity, essential to controlling the pandemic, has been increasing but remains sporadic and well below the national average. Access to care is increasingly difficult.
Mississippi has just over 400 ICU beds in its largest hospital service area, Jackson. Currently, 100 of those are occupied. Conservative estimates predict that needs for rural ICU beds will double to more than 800 in the next six months under moderate coronavirus infection projections.
Ventilators are an even bigger concern. University of Mississippi Medical Center has only about 125 to 150 ventilators in its facilities, and officials estimate 40% to half are in use on any given day.
The rural South’s health profile adds to the risk. The region has higher rates of chronic medical conditions that have been found to significantly increase the likelihood that a person infected with the coronavirus will develop severe COVID-19. Among the first 159 people to die from COVID-19 in Mississippi, over half had cardiovascular disease, over 40% had diabetes or high blood pressure, and one-third were obese.
Much of the care for these patients is being delivered through a shrinking rural health care system. Of the 128 rural hospital closures across the country in the last 10 years, over half were in the South. The pandemic has created more financial troubles for rural hospitals as nonessential procedures have been postponed. Every county in Mississippi is considered underserved, meaning residents don’t have enough doctors, even if they have access to a health care facility.
Testing and Investing in Health Care Long-Term
In the short term, Southern states need to increase their testing for coronavirus cases. Per capita, the South administered about 20% fewer tests. Many southern states currently rely on pop-up testing at sites temporarily opened in locations where other facilities are not available. Permanent, well-stocked testing centers would help residents know where to go.
In the long-term, these states need to invest in their rural health infrastructure.
Rural hospitals and pharmacies are essential to reducing long-term risk among rural Southerners, particularly those with chronic health conditions. They are also important “economic anchors” for their communities. According to the American Hospital Association statistics, every dollar spent by a hospital supports US$2.30 of additional business activity within the community and hospitals are a top source of private sector jobs.
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.