truthout--2020-04-28--Is a Post-Pandemic World the Beginning of the End for Oil?

Energy analysts have long assumed that , given time , growing international concern over climate change would result in a vast restructuring of the global energy enterprise .
The result : a greener , less climate-degrading system .
In this future , fossil fuels would be overtaken by renewables , while oil , gas , and coal would be relegated to an increasingly marginal role in the global energy equation .
In its World Energy Outlook 2019 , for example , the International Energy Agency ( IEA ) predicted that , by 2040 , renewables would finally supersede petroleum as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of energy and coal would largely disappear from the fuel mix .
As a result of Covid-19 , however , we may no longer have to wait another 20 years for such a cosmic transition to occur — it ’ s happening right now .
So take a breath and , amid all the bad news pouring in about a deadly global pandemic , consider this : when it comes to energy , what was expected to take at least two decades in the IEA ’ s most optimistic scenario may now occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns out that the impact of Covid-19 is reshaping the world energy equation , along with so much else , in unexpected ways .
That energy would be strongly affected by the pandemic should come as no surprise .
After all , fuel use is closely aligned with economic activity and Covid-19 has shut down much of the world economy .
With factories , offices , and other businesses closed or barely functioning , there ’ s naturally less demand for energy of all types .
But the impacts of the pandemic go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coping mechanisms — social distancing and stay-at-home requirements — have particular implications for energy consumption .
Among the first and most dramatic of these has been a shockingly deep decline in flying , automobile commuting , and leisure travel — activities that account for a large share of daily petroleum use .
Airline travel in the United States , for example , is down by 95 % from a year ago .
At the same time , the personal consumption of electricity for telework , distance learning , group conversations , and entertainment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , Microsoft reports that the use of its cloud services for team meetings — a voracious consumer of electricity — has increased by 775 % .
These are all meant to be temporary responses to the pandemic .
As government officials and their scientific advisers begin to talk about returning to some semblance of “ normalcy , ” however , it ’ s becoming increasingly clear that many such pandemic-related practices will persist in some fashion for a long time to come and , in some cases , may prove permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the norm in public spaces for many months , if not years , curtailing attendance at theme parks and major sports events that also typically involve lots of driving .
Many of us are also becoming more accustomed to working from home and may be in no rush to resume a harried 30- , 60- , or 90-minute commute to work each day .
Some colleges and universities , already under financial pressure of various sorts , may abandon in-person classes for many subjects and rely far more on distance learning .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the post-Covid-19 world is bound to have a very different look from the pre-pandemic one and energy use is likely to be among the areas most affected by the transformations underway .
It would be distinctly premature to make sweeping predictions about the energy profile of a post-coronavirus planet , but one thing certainly seems possible : the grand transition , crucial for averting the worst outcomes of climate change and originally projected to occur decades from now , could end up happening significantly more swiftly , even if at the price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions .
As 2019 drew to a close , most energy analysts assumed that petroleum would continue to dominate the global landscape through the 2020s , as it had in recent decades , resulting in ever greater amounts of carbon emissions being sent into the atmosphere .
For example , in its International Energy Outlook 2019 , the Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) of the U.S. Department of Energy projected that global petroleum use in 2020 would amount to 102.2 million barrels per day .
That would be up 1.1 million barrels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a row in which global consumption would have exceeded the notable threshold of 100 million barrels per day .
Grimly enough , the EIA further projected that world demand would continue to climb , reaching 104 million barrels per day by 2025 and 106 million barrels in 2030 .
In arriving at such projections , energy analysts assumed that the factors responsible for driving petroleum use upward in recent years would persist well into the future : growing automobile ownership in China , India , and other developing nations ; ever-increasing commutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live ever farther from city centers ; and an exponential increase in airline travel , especially in Asia .
Such factors , it was widely assumed , would more than compensate for any drop in demand caused by a greater preference for electric cars in Europe and a few other places .
As suggested by oil giant BP in its Energy Outlook for 2019 , “ All of the demand growth comes from developing economies , driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies.
” Even in January , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries , energy analysts imagined little change in such predictions .
Reporting “ continued strong momentum ” in oil use among the major developing economies , the IEA typically reaffirmed its belief that global consumption would grow by more than one million barrels daily in 2020 .
Only now has that agency begun to change its tune .
In its most recent Oil Market Report , it projected that global petroleum consumption in April would fall by an astonishing 29 million barrels per day compared to the same month the previous year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the equivalent of total 2019 oil usage by the United States , Canada , and Mexico .
Still , the IEA analysts assumed that all of this would just be a passing phenomenon .
In that same report , it also predicted that global economic activity would rebound in the second half of this year and , by December , oil usage would already be within a few million barrels of pre-coronavirus consumption levels .
Other indicators , however , suggest that such rosy predictions will prove highly fanciful .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 2019 levels by year ’ s end or even in early 2021 now appears remarkably unrealistic .
It is , in fact , doubtful that those earlier projections about sustained future growth in the demand for oil will ever materialize .
As a start , a return to pre-Covid-19 consumption levels assumes a reasonably rapid restoration of the world economy as it was , with Asia taking the lead .
At this moment , however , there ’ s no evidence that such an outcome is likely .
In its April World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fund predicted that global economic output would fall by 3 % in 2020 ( which may prove a distinct underestimate ) and that the pandemic ’ s harsh impacts , including widespread unemployment and business failures , will persist well into 2021 or beyond .
All told , it suggested , the cumulative loss to global gross domestic product in 2020 and 2021 , thanks to the pandemic , will amount to some $ 9 trillion , a sum greater than the economies of Japan and Germany combined ( and that assumes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiercely in late 2020 or 2021 , as the “ Spanish Flu ” did in 1918 ) .
This and other recent data suggest that any notion China , India , and other developing nations will soon resume their upward oil-consumption trajectory and save the global petroleum industry appears wildly far-fetched .
Indeed , on April 17th , China ’ s National Bureau of Statistics reported that the country ’ s GDP shrank by 6.8 % in the first three months of 2020 , the first such decline in 40 years and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth model .
Even though government officials are slowly opening factories and other key businesses again , most observers believe that spurring significant growth will prove exceedingly difficult given that Chinese consumers , traumatized by the pandemic and accompanying lockdown measures , seem loath to make new purchases or engage in travel , tourism , and the like .
And keep in mind that a slowdown in China will have staggering consequences for the economies of numerous other developing nations that rely on that country ’ s tourism or its imports of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other raw materials .
China , after all , is the leading destination for the exports of many Asian , African , and Latin American countries .
With Chinese factories closed or operating at a reduced tempo , the demand for their products has already plummeted , causing widespread economic hardship for their populations .
Add all this up , along with a rising tide of unemployment in the United States and elsewhere , and it would appear that the possibility of global oil consumption returning to pre-pandemic levels any time soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest at best .
Indeed , the major oil-exporting nations have evidently reached this conclusion on their own , as demonstrated by the extraordinary April 12th agreement that the Saudis , the Russians , and other major exporting countries reached to cut global production by nearly 10 million barrels per day .
It was a desperate bid to bolster oil prices , which had fallen by more than 50 % since the beginning of the year .
And keep in mind that even this reduction — unprecedented in scale — is unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as oil purchases continue to fall and fall again .
Energy analysts are likely to argue that , while the downturn will undoubtedly last longer than the IEA ’ s optimistic forecast , sooner or later petroleum use will return to its earlier patterns , once again cresting at the 100-million-barrels-per-day level .
But this appears highly unlikely , given the way the pandemic is reshaping the global economy and everyday human behavior .
After all , IEA and oil-industry forecasts assume a fully interconnected world in which the sort of dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Asia in the twenty-first century will sooner or later fuel economic vigor globally .
Extended supply lines will once again carry raw materials and other inputs to China ’ s factories , while Chinese parts and finished products will be transported to markets on every continent .
But whether or not that country ’ s economy starts to grow again , such a globalized economic model is unlikely to remain the prevailing one in the post-pandemic era .
Many countries and companies are , in fact , beginning to restructure their supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign suppliers by seeking alternatives closer to home — a trend likely to persist after pandemic-related restrictions are lifted ( especially in a world in which Trumpian-style “ nationalism ” still seems to be on the rise ) .
“ There will be a rethink of how much any country wants to be reliant on any other country , ” suggests the aptly named Elizabeth Economy , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations .
“ I don ’ t think fundamentally this is the end of globalization .
But this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been going on in the Trump administration , that there are critical technologies , critical resources , reserve manufacturing capacity that we want here in the U.S. in case of crisis.
” Other countries are bound to begin planning along similar lines , leading to a significant decline in transcontinental commerce .
Local and regional trade will , of course , have to increase to make up for this decline , but the net impact on petroleum demand is likely to be negative as long-distance trade and travel diminishes .
For China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could also mean a slower growth rate , squeezing those “ burgeoning middle classes ” that were , in turn , expected to be the major local drivers ( quite literally , in the case of the car cultures in those countries ) of petroleum consumption .
A Shift Toward Electricity — and a Greater Reliance on Renewables Another trend the coronavirus is likely to accelerate : greater reliance on telework by corporations , governments , universities , and other institutions .
Even before the pandemic broke out , many companies and organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and work-from-home operations to reduce travel costs , commuting headaches , and even , in some cases , greenhouse gas emissions .
In our new world , the use of these techniques is likely to become far more common .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic is , among other things , a massive experiment in telecommuting , ” observed Katherine Guyot and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution in a recent report .
“ Up to half of American workers are currently working from home , more than double the fraction who worked from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017-2018.
” Many such workers , they also noted , had been largely unfamiliar with telecommuting technology when this grand experiment began , but have quickly mastered the necessary skills .
Given little choice in the matter , high school and college students are also becoming more adept at telework as their schools shift to remote learning .
Meanwhile , companies and colleges are investing massively in the necessary hardware and software for such communications and teaching .
As a result , Guyot and Sawhill suggest , “ The outbreak is accelerating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long term.
” Any large increase in teleworking is bound to have a dramatic dual impact on energy use : people will drive less , reducing their oil consumption , while relying more on teleconferencing and cloud computing , and so increasing their use of electricity .
“ The coronavirus reminds us that electricity is more indispensable than ever , ” says Fatih Birol , executive director of the IEA .
“ Millions of people are now confined to their homes , resorting to teleworking to do their jobs.
” Increased reliance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant impact on the very nature of primary fuel consumption , as coal begins to lose its dominant role in the generation of electrical power and is replaced at an ever-accellerating pace by renewables .
In 2018 , according to the IEA ’ s World Energy Outlook 2019 , a distressing 38 % of world electricity generation was still provided by coal , another 26 % by oil and natural gas , and only 26 % by renewables ; the remaining 10 % came from nuclear and other sources of energy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as climate-conscious policies began to have a significant impact — but , even in the IEA ’ s most hopeful scenarios , it was only after 2030 that renewables would reach the 50 % level in electricity generation .
With Covid-19 , however , that process is now likely to speed up , as power utilities adjust to the global economic slowdown and seek to minimize their costs .
With many businesses shut down , net electricity use in the United States has actually declined somewhat in these months — although not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petroleum use , given the way home electricity consumption has compensated for a plunge in business demand .
As utilities adapt to this challenging environment , they are finding that wind and solar power are often the least costly sources of primary energy , with natural gas just behind them and coal the most expensive of all .
Insofar as they are investing in the future , then , they appear to be favoring large solar and wind projects , which can , in fact , be brought online relatively quickly , assuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take longer to install and coal offers no advantages whatsoever .
In the depths of global disaster , it ’ s way too early to make detailed predictions about the energy landscape of future decades .
Nonetheless , it does appear that the present still-raging pandemic is forcing dramatic shifts in the way we consume energy and that many of these changes are likely to persist in some fashion long after the virus has been tamed .
Given the already extreme nature of the heating of this planet , such shifts are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal industries but beneficial for the environment — and so for the rest of us .
Deadly , disruptive , and economically devastating as Covid-19 has proved to be , in retrospect it may turn out to have had at least this one silver lining .

Energy analysts have long assumed that, given time, growing international concern over climate change would result in a vast restructuring of the global energy enterprise. The result: a greener, less climate-degrading system. In this future, fossil fuels would be overtaken by renewables, while oil, gas, and coal would be relegated to an increasingly marginal role in the global energy equation. In its World Energy Outlook 2019, for example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that, by 2040, renewables would finally supersede petroleum as the planet’s number one source of energy and coal would largely disappear from the fuel mix. As a result of Covid-19, however, we may no longer have to wait another 20 years for such a cosmic transition to occur — it’s happening right now.
So take a breath and, amid all the bad news pouring in about a deadly global pandemic, consider this: when it comes to energy, what was expected to take at least two decades in the IEA’s most optimistic scenario may now occur in just a few years. It turns out that the impact of Covid-19 is reshaping the world energy equation, along with so much else, in unexpected ways.
That energy would be strongly affected by the pandemic should come as no surprise. After all, fuel use is closely aligned with economic activity and Covid-19 has shut down much of the world economy. With factories, offices, and other businesses closed or barely functioning, there’s naturally less demand for energy of all types. But the impacts of the pandemic go far beyond that, as our principal coping mechanisms — social distancing and stay-at-home requirements — have particular implications for energy consumption.
Among the first and most dramatic of these has been a shockingly deep decline in flying, automobile commuting, and leisure travel — activities that account for a large share of daily petroleum use. Airline travel in the United States, for example, is down by 95% from a year ago. At the same time, the personal consumption of electricity for telework, distance learning, group conversations, and entertainment has soared. In hard-hit Italy, for instance, Microsoft reports that the use of its cloud services for team meetings — a voracious consumer of electricity — has increased by 775%.
These are all meant to be temporary responses to the pandemic. As government officials and their scientific advisers begin to talk about returning to some semblance of “normalcy,” however, it’s becoming increasingly clear that many such pandemic-related practices will persist in some fashion for a long time to come and, in some cases, may prove permanent. Social distancing is likely to remain the norm in public spaces for many months, if not years, curtailing attendance at theme parks and major sports events that also typically involve lots of driving. Many of us are also becoming more accustomed to working from home and may be in no rush to resume a harried 30-, 60-, or 90-minute commute to work each day. Some colleges and universities, already under financial pressure of various sorts, may abandon in-person classes for many subjects and rely far more on distance learning.
No matter how this pandemic finally plays out, the post-Covid-19 world is bound to have a very different look from the pre-pandemic one and energy use is likely to be among the areas most affected by the transformations underway. It would be distinctly premature to make sweeping predictions about the energy profile of a post-coronavirus planet, but one thing certainly seems possible: the grand transition, crucial for averting the worst outcomes of climate change and originally projected to occur decades from now, could end up happening significantly more swiftly, even if at the price of widespread bankruptcies and prolonged unemployment for millions.
Oil’s Dominance in Jeopardy
As 2019 drew to a close, most energy analysts assumed that petroleum would continue to dominate the global landscape through the 2020s, as it had in recent decades, resulting in ever greater amounts of carbon emissions being sent into the atmosphere. For example, in its International Energy Outlook 2019, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy projected that global petroleum use in 2020 would amount to 102.2 million barrels per day. That would be up 1.1 million barrels from 2019 and represent the second year in a row in which global consumption would have exceeded the notable threshold of 100 million barrels per day. Grimly enough, the EIA further projected that world demand would continue to climb, reaching 104 million barrels per day by 2025 and 106 million barrels in 2030.
In arriving at such projections, energy analysts assumed that the factors responsible for driving petroleum use upward in recent years would persist well into the future: growing automobile ownership in China, India, and other developing nations; ever-increasing commutes as soaring real-estate prices forced people to live ever farther from city centers; and an exponential increase in airline travel, especially in Asia. Such factors, it was widely assumed, would more than compensate for any drop in demand caused by a greater preference for electric cars in Europe and a few other places. As suggested by oil giant BP in its Energy Outlook for 2019, “All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies.”
Even in January, as the coronavirus began to spread from China to other countries, energy analysts imagined little change in such predictions. Reporting “continued strong momentum” in oil use among the major developing economies, the IEA typically reaffirmed its belief that global consumption would grow by more than one million barrels daily in 2020.
Only now has that agency begun to change its tune. In its most recent Oil Market Report, it projected that global petroleum consumption in April would fall by an astonishing 29 million barrels per day compared to the same month the previous year. That drop, by the way, is the equivalent of total 2019 oil usage by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Still, the IEA analysts assumed that all of this would just be a passing phenomenon. In that same report, it also predicted that global economic activity would rebound in the second half of this year and, by December, oil usage would already be within a few million barrels of pre-coronavirus consumption levels.
Other indicators, however, suggest that such rosy predictions will prove highly fanciful. The likelihood that oil consumption will approach 2018 or 2019 levels by year’s end or even in early 2021 now appears remarkably unrealistic. It is, in fact, doubtful that those earlier projections about sustained future growth in the demand for oil will ever materialize.
A Shattered World Economy
As a start, a return to pre-Covid-19 consumption levels assumes a reasonably rapid restoration of the world economy as it was, with Asia taking the lead. At this moment, however, there’s no evidence that such an outcome is likely.
In its April World Economic Outlook report, the International Monetary Fund predicted that global economic output would fall by 3% in 2020 (which may prove a distinct underestimate) and that the pandemic’s harsh impacts, including widespread unemployment and business failures, will persist well into 2021 or beyond. All told, it suggested, the cumulative loss to global gross domestic product in 2020 and 2021, thanks to the pandemic, will amount to some $9 trillion, a sum greater than the economies of Japan and Germany combined (and that assumes the coronavirus will not come back yet more fiercely in late 2020 or 2021, as the “Spanish Flu” did in 1918).
This and other recent data suggest that any notion China, India, and other developing nations will soon resume their upward oil-consumption trajectory and save the global petroleum industry appears wildly far-fetched. Indeed, on April 17th, China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that the country’s GDP shrank by 6.8% in the first three months of 2020, the first such decline in 40 years and a staggering blow to that country’s growth model. Even though government officials are slowly opening factories and other key businesses again, most observers believe that spurring significant growth will prove exceedingly difficult given that Chinese consumers, traumatized by the pandemic and accompanying lockdown measures, seem loath to make new purchases or engage in travel, tourism, and the like.
And keep in mind that a slowdown in China will have staggering consequences for the economies of numerous other developing nations that rely on that country’s tourism or its imports of their oil, copper, iron ore, and other raw materials. China, after all, is the leading destination for the exports of many Asian, African, and Latin American countries. With Chinese factories closed or operating at a reduced tempo, the demand for their products has already plummeted, causing widespread economic hardship for their populations.
Add all this up, along with a rising tide of unemployment in the United States and elsewhere, and it would appear that the possibility of global oil consumption returning to pre-pandemic levels any time soon — or even at all — is modest at best. Indeed, the major oil-exporting nations have evidently reached this conclusion on their own, as demonstrated by the extraordinary April 12th agreement that the Saudis, the Russians, and other major exporting countries reached to cut global production by nearly 10 million barrels per day. It was a desperate bid to bolster oil prices, which had fallen by more than 50% since the beginning of the year. And keep in mind that even this reduction — unprecedented in scale — is unlikely to prevent a further decline in those prices, as oil purchases continue to fall and fall again.
Doing Things Differently
Energy analysts are likely to argue that, while the downturn will undoubtedly last longer than the IEA’s optimistic forecast, sooner or later petroleum use will return to its earlier patterns, once again cresting at the 100-million-barrels-per-day level. But this appears highly unlikely, given the way the pandemic is reshaping the global economy and everyday human behavior.
After all, IEA and oil-industry forecasts assume a fully interconnected world in which the sort of dynamic growth we’ve come to expect from Asia in the twenty-first century will sooner or later fuel economic vigor globally. Extended supply lines will once again carry raw materials and other inputs to China’s factories, while Chinese parts and finished products will be transported to markets on every continent. But whether or not that country’s economy starts to grow again, such a globalized economic model is unlikely to remain the prevailing one in the post-pandemic era. Many countries and companies are, in fact, beginning to restructure their supply lines to avoid a full-scale reliance on foreign suppliers by seeking alternatives closer to home — a trend likely to persist after pandemic-related restrictions are lifted (especially in a world in which Trumpian-style “nationalism” still seems to be on the rise).
“There will be a rethink of how much any country wants to be reliant on any other country,” suggests the aptly named Elizabeth Economy, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I don’t think fundamentally this is the end of globalization. But this does accelerate the type of thinking that has been going on in the Trump administration, that there are critical technologies, critical resources, reserve manufacturing capacity that we want here in the U.S. in case of crisis.”
Other countries are bound to begin planning along similar lines, leading to a significant decline in transcontinental commerce. Local and regional trade will, of course, have to increase to make up for this decline, but the net impact on petroleum demand is likely to be negative as long-distance trade and travel diminishes. For China and other rising Asian powers, this could also mean a slower growth rate, squeezing those “burgeoning middle classes” that were, in turn, expected to be the major local drivers (quite literally, in the case of the car cultures in those countries) of petroleum consumption.
A Shift Toward Electricity — and a Greater Reliance on Renewables
Another trend the coronavirus is likely to accelerate: greater reliance on telework by corporations, governments, universities, and other institutions. Even before the pandemic broke out, many companies and organizations were beginning to rely more on teleconferencing and work-from-home operations to reduce travel costs, commuting headaches, and even, in some cases, greenhouse gas emissions. In our new world, the use of these techniques is likely to become far more common.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is, among other things, a massive experiment in telecommuting,” observed Katherine Guyot and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution in a recent report. “Up to half of American workers are currently working from home, more than double the fraction who worked from home (at least occasionally) in 2017-2018.”
Many such workers, they also noted, had been largely unfamiliar with telecommuting technology when this grand experiment began, but have quickly mastered the necessary skills. Given little choice in the matter, high school and college students are also becoming more adept at telework as their schools shift to remote learning. Meanwhile, companies and colleges are investing massively in the necessary hardware and software for such communications and teaching. As a result, Guyot and Sawhill suggest, “The outbreak is accelerating the trend toward telecommuting, possibly for the long term.”
Any large increase in teleworking is bound to have a dramatic dual impact on energy use: people will drive less, reducing their oil consumption, while relying more on teleconferencing and cloud computing, and so increasing their use of electricity. “The coronavirus reminds us that electricity is more indispensable than ever,” says Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA. “Millions of people are now confined to their homes, resorting to teleworking to do their jobs.”
Increased reliance on electricity, in turn, will have a significant impact on the very nature of primary fuel consumption, as coal begins to lose its dominant role in the generation of electrical power and is replaced at an ever-accellerating pace by renewables. In 2018, according to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2019, a distressing 38% of world electricity generation was still provided by coal, another 26% by oil and natural gas, and only 26% by renewables; the remaining 10% came from nuclear and other sources of energy. This was expected to change dramatically over time as climate-conscious policies began to have a significant impact — but, even in the IEA’s most hopeful scenarios, it was only after 2030 that renewables would reach the 50% level in electricity generation. With Covid-19, however, that process is now likely to speed up, as power utilities adjust to the global economic slowdown and seek to minimize their costs.
With many businesses shut down, net electricity use in the United States has actually declined somewhat in these months — although not nearly as much as the drop in petroleum use, given the way home electricity consumption has compensated for a plunge in business demand. As utilities adapt to this challenging environment, they are finding that wind and solar power are often the least costly sources of primary energy, with natural gas just behind them and coal the most expensive of all. Insofar as they are investing in the future, then, they appear to be favoring large solar and wind projects, which can, in fact, be brought online relatively quickly, assuring needed revenue. New natural gas plants take longer to install and coal offers no advantages whatsoever.
In the depths of global disaster, it’s way too early to make detailed predictions about the energy landscape of future decades. Nonetheless, it does appear that the present still-raging pandemic is forcing dramatic shifts in the way we consume energy and that many of these changes are likely to persist in some fashion long after the virus has been tamed. Given the already extreme nature of the heating of this planet, such shifts are likely to prove catastrophic for the oil and coal industries but beneficial for the environment — and so for the rest of us. Deadly, disruptive, and economically devastating as Covid-19 has proved to be, in retrospect it may turn out to have had at least this one silver lining.
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.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.


truthout--2020-04-28--Relief Is Funneled to the Wealthy. We Need a Financial Infrastructure Overhaul.

The coronavirus — both the pandemic itself and the economic recession it caused — are hitting marginalized groups the hardest : low-wage workers , women and people of color ( especially women of color ) and small businesses .
But instead of providing equitable relief targeted to the most disadvantaged households and businesses , Congress and the Federal Reserve are reinforcing many of the existing disparities that made our health care system and economy so fragile to begin with .
Indeed , richer companies edged out smaller ones for pandemic aid , and wealthier individuals have already received their stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ households still wait to receive their check in the mail .
Delivery systems for getting aid to individuals are either laggard or nonexistent in the U.S .
The best we have is Social Security and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) .
There are 65 million individuals each receiving monthly Social Security payments .
But that system is targeted only to the elderly and people receiving other supplemental social security assistance — one of the few cohorts of people our society deems “ worthy.
” There are 40 million U.S. residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under constant threat of cuts by the Trump administration , even during the pandemic .
Meanwhile , unemployment systems are meant to be able to get money to individuals , but coronavirus has shown how brittle and broken these systems are .
Some people are unable to access their state ’ s unemployment website .
Others either can not get through to their state ’ s unemployment hotline , or must wait for hours to be connected .
And the corrosion isn ’ t by accident — states have deliberately underinvested in systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from receiving aid .
It ’ s also the result of state-sanctioned indirect theft out of state unemployment trust funds , as companies like Uber , Lyft , DoorDash and Grubhub get away without paying into the system by misclassifying their workers as contractors , which gets them out of paying what they owe into state unemployment funds .
By contrast , the government is quite efficient at deploying money quickly to corporations and to wealthier individuals .
While there were cutoffs for the stimulus check , topping out at incomes of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is relatively wealthier individuals who will get their money first , as they are most likely to have their direct deposit information on file with the IRS .
Meanwhile , millions of lower-income households may have to wait for paper checks in the mail weeks later and long after rent has come due and savings have been depleted ( further delayed because Trump wanted his name on the check ) .
But while this botched and unequal rollout may appear to be the result of clogs in the system , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers chose to lay financial pipes in the first place .
Inequality is embedded in the very design of our nation ’ s financial plumbing .
And any relief package , if it is to be effective , will need to provide for the financial infrastructure to enable the government to actually get money to those who need it : postal banking , public access to direct accounts with the Federal Reserve and a National Investment Authority .
According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , the agency that backs all bank customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have a bank account , more than half of them because they “ do not have enough money to keep in an account.
” Nearly half of Black and Latino households have little to no access to checking and savings accounts .
Ninety-three percent of the nearly 2,000 banks shut down from 2008-2013 were in zip codes where the household income was below the national median , which was $ 52,250 in 2013 .
And high fees are the most-cited reason why low- and moderate-income households don ’ t access bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem would be with postal banking .
In 2012 , law professor Mehrsa Baradaran proposed the creation of a banking system run through the U.S. postal system .
The United States Postal Service ( USPS ) is uniquely situated to tackle some of these existing inequities .
Due to its legal requirement to serve all Americans , regardless of geography , the USPS has over 31,000 branches serving every community in the country .
Fifty-nine percent of post offices are in zip codes with either no bank or only one bank .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Postal Workers Union , who have a campaign for advancing postal banking .
The Office of the Inspector General of the USPS wrote a report in 2014 noting that since it already provides money orders , it could explore expanding certain financial services .
And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has supported this idea with her Postal Banking Act legislation , which she is advocating as a part of her work to save the USPS during the pandemic .
The Public Should Get the Same Bank Account That Banks Can Get Another problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their payment late , or not at all .
An estimated 10 million are at risk of not receiving a payment , because the IRS may not have any information for them : those who earn less than $ 12,200 a year aren ’ t required to file taxes .
The IRS tried to fix this problem by providing an online form non-filers could fill out — but that is presuming people knew this form existed in the first place .
Contrast this with the instantaneous access to cash available to banks both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct accounts with the Federal Reserve .
These accounts are very attractive , featuring much higher interest than ordinary checking and savings accounts , as well as instant payments and full government backing .
In 2018 , law professors Morgan Ricks , John Crawford and Lev Menand proposed that all U.S. individuals have the option to keep a no-fee , no-minimum-balance account at the Fed .
Sen. Sherrod Brown embraced the idea , proposing the creation of FedAccounts for all to ensure no one need rely on an expensive check casher to access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also introduced legislation to create FedAccounts .
FedAccounts for all would also ensure that none of the 10 million non-filers would miss their stimulus payment .
A Democratically Accountable Agency for Nationwide Investment in the Real Economy The Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , created as a part of the CARES Act relief package , was aimed at giving loans and grants to “ small business ” ( defined as those with less than 500 employees , though there are exceptions ) , administered through financial institution lending programs .
Banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPP ’ s first round of $ 350 billion in small business funding simply because they completed the paperwork on behalf of the Small Business Administration — not because they shouldered the risk of repayment .
Despite the federal government ’ s stated bipartisan commitment to rescuing small businesses , the actual policy outcome failed to meet its goals and was in fact regressive .
Private banks catered to their wealthier clients first , allowing them to beat small businesses to the finite pot of loans .
JPMorgan Chase was the largest lender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 14 billion in PPP funds .
As a result , many of the smallest companies failed to get any aid prior to the program running out of the first round of funding .
The existing frictions in our financial infrastructure enable not just the richer companies to move fastest , it also allows profit-making and cronyism to flourish in the corporate bailout programs .
For example , former Republican Rep. Eric Cantor ’ s firm Moelis & Co. was given a contract to oversee bailouts to the cargo industry .
Other Washington-connected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the airlines and national security companies .
And Wall Street titan BlackRock has been hired by the Fed to run its program to purchase corporate debt and other securities .
This public work has been outsourced to private market actors — at an added cost to the taxpayer and without the democratic oversight that voters deserve .
A proposal from law professors Saule Omarova and Robert Hockett offers a solution to this last problem .
In 2018 , they proposed establishing a National Investment Authority ( NIA ) which would invest in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Think of it as a public asset manager , like BlackRock , which invests in projects that help the public good , either in good times or when bailouts are necessary .
Their proposal is modeled after an enormous public sector financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation ( RFC ) .
The RFC acted as “ the capital bank for the New Deal , ” lending to everyone from state and local governments to businesses large and small .
At its peak , it had more assets than all the Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today need to raise cash to invest in big projects , they tap into their existing relationships with private Wall Street firms to create debt offerings .
Small businesses lack this luxury .
Creating an NIA would allow the U.S. to deploy both emergency funds when needed and nationwide investment , be they small loans for bars and restaurants , or large-scale infrastructure projects like the Green New Deal .
A National Investment Authority would also ensure that the government had in-house expertise instead of relying on private bankers as it does right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bailout manager , ensuring that any funds are managed by an entity independent of any presidential administration , one with a mission to support economic activity by supporting businesses large and small .
Omarova and Hockett ’ s proposal also outlines a democratically accountable governance structure made up of a board overseen by Congress and audited annually by the Government Accountability Office , which would help resist pressures like the Trump administration ’ s insistence on a big oil bailout .
None of these academic proposals are new , but the solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic is creating makes them seem prescient .
We must invest the time now to build these systems ; if we don ’ t , when the next crisis hits , we will further entrench the inequality built into the very system itself .
If we fail to act at this urgent time , we risk cementing our policy-driven inequality indefinitely .

Our system is very efficient at deploying money quickly to corporations and the wealthy, but not to those who need it.
Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
The coronavirus — both the pandemic itself and the economic recession it caused — are hitting marginalized groups the hardest: low-wage workers, women and people of color (especially women of color) and small businesses. But instead of providing equitable relief targeted to the most disadvantaged households and businesses, Congress and the Federal Reserve are reinforcing many of the existing disparities that made our health care system and economy so fragile to begin with. Indeed, richer companies edged out smaller ones for pandemic aid, and wealthier individuals have already received their stimulus payment via direct deposit, while lower-income households still wait to receive their check in the mail.
Delivery systems for getting aid to individuals are either laggard or nonexistent in the U.S. The best we have is Social Security and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). There are 65 million individuals each receiving monthly Social Security payments. But that system is targeted only to the elderly and people receiving other supplemental social security assistance — one of the few cohorts of people our society deems “worthy.” There are 40 million U.S. residents receiving SNAP, but this program is under constant threat of cuts by the Trump administration, even during the pandemic. Meanwhile, unemployment systems are meant to be able to get money to individuals, but coronavirus has shown how brittle and broken these systems are. Some people are unable to access their state’s unemployment website. Others either cannot get through to their state’s unemployment hotline, or must wait for hours to be connected.
And the corrosion isn’t by accident — states have deliberately underinvested in systems in order to deter individuals and families from receiving aid. It’s also the result of state-sanctioned indirect theft out of state unemployment trust funds, as companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Grubhub get away without paying into the system by misclassifying their workers as contractors, which gets them out of paying what they owe into state unemployment funds.
By contrast, the government is quite efficient at deploying money quickly to corporations and to wealthier individuals. While there were cutoffs for the stimulus check, topping out at incomes of $198,000 for a couple filing jointly, it is relatively wealthier individuals who will get their money first, as they are most likely to have their direct deposit information on file with the IRS. Meanwhile, millions of lower-income households may have to wait for paper checks in the mail weeks later and long after rent has come due and savings have been depleted (further delayed because Trump wanted his name on the check).
But while this botched and unequal rollout may appear to be the result of clogs in the system, it’s actually a reflection of where our policymakers chose to lay financial pipes in the first place. Inequality is embedded in the very design of our nation’s financial plumbing. And any relief package, if it is to be effective, will need to provide for the financial infrastructure to enable the government to actually get money to those who need it: postal banking, public access to direct accounts with the Federal Reserve and a National Investment Authority.
The USPS Could Democratize Banking
According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the agency that backs all bank customers’ deposits, 14.1 million Americans don’t have a bank account, more than half of them because they “do not have enough money to keep in an account.” Nearly half of Black and Latino households have little to no access to checking and savings accounts. Ninety-three percent of the nearly 2,000 banks shut down from 2008-2013 were in zip codes where the household income was below the national median, which was $52,250 in 2013. And high fees are the most-cited reason why low- and moderate-income households don’t access bank accounts.
Inequality is embedded in the very design of our nation’s financial plumbing.
One way to solve this problem would be with postal banking. In 2012, law professor Mehrsa Baradaran proposed the creation of a banking system run through the U.S. postal system. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is uniquely situated to tackle some of these existing inequities. Due to its legal requirement to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, the USPS has over 31,000 branches serving every community in the country. Fifty-nine percent of post offices are in zip codes with either no bank or only one bank. Many have embraced this idea, including the American Postal Workers Union, who have a campaign for advancing postal banking. The Office of the Inspector General of the USPS wrote a report in 2014 noting that since it already provides money orders, it could explore expanding certain financial services. And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has supported this idea with her Postal Banking Act legislation, which she is advocating as a part of her work to save the USPS during the pandemic.
The Public Should Get the Same Bank Account That Banks Can Get
Another problem is that the most distressed will either get their payment late, or not at all. An estimated 10 million are at risk of not receiving a payment, because the IRS may not have any information for them: those who earn less than $12,200 a year aren’t required to file taxes. The IRS tried to fix this problem by providing an online form non-filers could fill out — but that is presuming people knew this form existed in the first place.
FedAccounts for all would also ensure that none of the 10 million non-filers would miss their stimulus payment.
Contrast this with the instantaneous access to cash available to banks both large and small. Financial institutions have direct accounts with the Federal Reserve. These accounts are very attractive, featuring much higher interest than ordinary checking and savings accounts, as well as instant payments and full government backing. In 2018, law professors Morgan Ricks, John Crawford and Lev Menand proposed that all U.S. individuals have the option to keep a no-fee, no-minimum-balance account at the Fed. Sen. Sherrod Brown embraced the idea, proposing the creation of FedAccounts for all to ensure no one need rely on an expensive check casher to access their stimulus payment. Rep. Maxine Waters has also introduced legislation to create FedAccounts. FedAccounts for all would also ensure that none of the 10 million non-filers would miss their stimulus payment.
A Democratically Accountable Agency for Nationwide Investment in the Real Economy
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), created as a part of the CARES Act relief package, was aimed at giving loans and grants to “small business” (defined as those with less than 500 employees, though there are exceptions), administered through financial institution lending programs. Banks have earned $10 billion off the PPP’s first round of $350 billion in small business funding simply because they completed the paperwork on behalf of the Small Business Administration — not because they shouldered the risk of repayment.
Despite the federal government’s stated bipartisan commitment to rescuing small businesses, the actual policy outcome failed to meet its goals and was in fact regressive. Private banks catered to their wealthier clients first, allowing them to beat small businesses to the finite pot of loans. JPMorgan Chase was the largest lender in the program, deploying a whopping $14 billion in PPP funds. As a result, many of the smallest companies failed to get any aid prior to the program running out of the first round of funding.
The existing frictions in our financial infrastructure enable not just the richer companies to move fastest, it also allows profit-making and cronyism to flourish in the corporate bailout programs.
The existing frictions in our financial infrastructure enable not just the richer companies to move fastest, it also allows profit-making and cronyism to flourish in the corporate bailout programs. For example, former Republican Rep. Eric Cantor’s firm Moelis & Co. was given a contract to oversee bailouts to the cargo industry. Other Washington-connected bankers got work handling loans programs to the airlines and national security companies. And Wall Street titan BlackRock has been hired by the Fed to run its program to purchase corporate debt and other securities. This public work has been outsourced to private market actors — at an added cost to the taxpayer and without the democratic oversight that voters deserve.
A proposal from law professors Saule Omarova and Robert Hockett offers a solution to this last problem. In 2018, they proposed establishing a National Investment Authority (NIA) which would invest in public projects that would boost the real economy. Think of it as a public asset manager, like BlackRock, which invests in projects that help the public good, either in good times or when bailouts are necessary. Their proposal is modeled after an enormous public sector financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). The RFC acted as “the capital bank for the New Deal,” lending to everyone from state and local governments to businesses large and small. At its peak, it had more assets than all the Wall Street banks combined.
When large companies today need to raise cash to invest in big projects, they tap into their existing relationships with private Wall Street firms to create debt offerings. Small businesses lack this luxury. Creating an NIA would allow the U.S. to deploy both emergency funds when needed and nationwide investment, be they small loans for bars and restaurants, or large-scale infrastructure projects like the Green New Deal.
A National Investment Authority would also ensure that the government had in-house expertise instead of relying on private bankers as it does right now. The NIA could act as a bailout manager, ensuring that any funds are managed by an entity independent of any presidential administration, one with a mission to support economic activity by supporting businesses large and small. Omarova and Hockett’s proposal also outlines a democratically accountable governance structure made up of a board overseen by Congress and audited annually by the Government Accountability Office, which would help resist pressures like the Trump administration’s insistence on a big oil bailout.
None of these academic proposals are new, but the solutions they offer to the economic gridlock the pandemic is creating makes them seem prescient. We must invest the time now to build these systems; if we don’t, when the next crisis hits, we will further entrench the inequality built into the very system itself. If we fail to act at this urgent time, we risk cementing our policy-driven inequality indefinitely.
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--2020-04-28--Experts Warn Trump Plan for States to Test 2% of Residents “Doesn’t Do Anything”

President Donald Trump on Monday unveiled what the White House described as a “ blueprint ” for nationwide Covid-19 testing that public health experts say falls far short of the robust federal strategy needed to track and contain the deadly virus before states can safely begin reopening their economies .
A senior Trump administration official told the Wall Street Journal that the White House testing plan would provide all 50 states in the U.S. with enough equipment to test at least 2 % of their residents .
Ashish Jha , director of the Harvard Global Health Institute , said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s about 6 to 7 million [ tests ] , ” said Jha , “ and if that ’ s one-time , that doesn ’ t do anything.
” The blueprint ( pdf ) is organized into an eight-part strategy that largely leaves states responsible for carrying out a massive expansion of testing , even as governors say they lack the equipment and capacity to ramp up screenings to the level that experts say is necessary .
The White House role , the blueprint says , is to “ enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic guidance.
” The document describes the federal government as a “ supplier of last resort.
” The administration also emphasized its partnership with the private sector ; Trump on Monday met with executives from Walmart , CVS , Walgreens , and other companies to discuss their role in distributing and administering Covid-19 tests .
“ We want to get our country open , ” Trump said during a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday evening .
“ And the testing is not going to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s going to be one of the great assets that we have.
” Democratic members of Congress , meanwhile , ripped the president ’ s testing plan as inadequate and accused the White House of abdicating its responsibility by putting the onus on states .
“ This document does nothing new and will accomplish nothing new , ” Sen. Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) said in a statement .
“ It doesn ’ t set specific , numeric goals , offer a timeframe , identify ways to fix our broken supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on expanding lab capacity or activating needed manufacturing capacity.
” “ Perhaps most pathetically , it attempts to shirk obviously federal responsibilities by assigning them solely to states instead , ” Murray added .
“ What we need is a clear , aggressive national strategic plan to dramatically ramp up testing and make sure tests are fast , free , and everywhere — and then we need the administration to implement it like people expect the president of the United States of America and his team to do.
” The White House plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Texas and Ohio , pushed ahead with plans to reopen parts of their economies despite the lack of far-reaching testing capacity .
Trump , who has lied repeatedly about the level of testing in the U.S. relative to other major nations , told governors in a conference call Monday that they should “ start to think about school openings ” despite warnings against doing so from health professionals .
“ The young children have done very well in this disaster that we ’ ve all gone through , so a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the president said on the call , according to the New York Times .
Paul Romer , a Nobel Prize-winning economist at New York University , told the Times that testing 2 % of residents in each state “ is not enough to test everyone in healthcare even once , let alone to keep retesting them every day , which is what it would take to keep those who do get infected from going on shift and infecting their colleagues.
” Romer has recommended that the U.S. develop the capacity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks , a strategy he estimates would cost around $ 100 billion .
“ It ’ s totally in our control to fix this , ” Romer told the Washington Post of the country ’ s inadequate testing .
“ We should be spending $ 100 billion on the testing .
We should just get it going .
It ’ s just not that hard .
”

President Donald Trump on Monday unveiled what the White House described as a “blueprint” for nationwide Covid-19 testing that public health experts say falls far short of the robust federal strategy needed to track and contain the deadly virus before states can safely begin reopening their economies.
A senior Trump administration official told the Wall Street Journal that the White House testing plan would provide all 50 states in the U.S. with enough equipment to test at least 2% of their residents. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said that number is nowhere close to adequate.
“It’s about 6 to 7 million [tests],” said Jha, “and if that’s one-time, that doesn’t do anything.”
The blueprint (pdf) is organized into an eight-part strategy that largely leaves states responsible for carrying out a massive expansion of testing, even as governors say they lack the equipment and capacity to ramp up screenings to the level that experts say is necessary.
The White House role, the blueprint says, is to “enable Innovation, scale supplies, and provide strategic guidance.” The document describes the federal government as a “supplier of last resort.” The administration also emphasized its partnership with the private sector; Trump on Monday met with executives from Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, and other companies to discuss their role in distributing and administering Covid-19 tests.
“We want to get our country open,” Trump said during a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday evening. “And the testing is not going to be a problem at all. In fact, it’s going to be one of the great assets that we have.”
Democratic members of Congress, meanwhile, ripped the president’s testing plan as inadequate and accused the White House of abdicating its responsibility by putting the onus on states.
“This document does nothing new and will accomplish nothing new,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement. “It doesn’t set specific, numeric goals, offer a timeframe, identify ways to fix our broken supply chain, or offer any details whatsoever on expanding lab capacity or activating needed manufacturing capacity.”
“Perhaps most pathetically, it attempts to shirk obviously federal responsibilities by assigning them solely to states instead,” Murray added. “What we need is a clear, aggressive national strategic plan to dramatically ramp up testing and make sure tests are fast, free, and everywhere — and then we need the administration to implement it like people expect the president of the United States of America and his team to do.”
The White House plan came as governors of several states, including Texas and Ohio, pushed ahead with plans to reopen parts of their economies despite the lack of far-reaching testing capacity.
Trump, who has lied repeatedly about the level of testing in the U.S. relative to other major nations, told governors in a conference call Monday that they should “start to think about school openings” despite warnings against doing so from health professionals.
“The young children have done very well in this disaster that we’ve all gone through, so a lot of people are thinking about the school openings,” the president said on the call, according to the New York Times.
How vague and meaningless is this? pic.twitter.com/CghtqotTf9 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 27, 2020
Paul Romer, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at New York University, told the Times that testing 2% of residents in each state “is not enough to test everyone in healthcare even once, let alone to keep retesting them every day, which is what it would take to keep those who do get infected from going on shift and infecting their colleagues.”
Romer has recommended that the U.S. develop the capacity to test everyone in the nation once every two weeks, a strategy he estimates would cost around $100 billion.
“It’s totally in our control to fix this,” Romer told the Washington Post of the country’s inadequate testing. “We should be spending $100 billion on the testing. We should just get it going. It’s just not that hard.”
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--2020-04-28--Trump and McConnell Aren’t Waging War on COVID. They’re Waging War on Us.

Donald Trump and his top Republican allies in Congress are fighting a war , and the battle lines have begun to clarify themselves .
Their war is not being waged against COVID-19 , the pandemic that has killed tens of thousands in this nation alone .
Their war is being waged against the nation itself , and specifically against areas of the nation that are heavy on population but light on Trump supporters .
In other words , the big-city blue states , whose governors have refused to fawn over Trump ’ s gibberish-flecked “ leadership ” during this crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of federal aid to the states like his own personal spoils system : rewarding loyalty , punishing critics , and demanding to be praised for doing his job whenever he actually does it , but especially when he doesn ’ t .
The issue has come to a head as governors from both parties are screaming for desperately needed federal aid for their respective states .
Congress , particularly the Republican Senate , has been dragging its feet over passing a bill to provide states-specific aid , because doing so would be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , and such a thing is ideologically unsound on McConnell ’ s side of the aisle .
“ Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states ( like Illinois , as example ) and cities , in all cases Democrat run and managed , when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help ?
” Trump tweeted on Monday night .
“ It ’ s not fair to the taxpayers of Florida , ” said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live within our means , and then New York , Illinois , California and other states don ’ t .
And we ’ re supposed to go bail them out ?
That ’ s not right.
” For the record , Scott ’ s “ we live within our means ” quip is a hot hoot .
The only reason Florida can claim to be living within its budgetary means is by denying hundreds of thousands of residents , many in the service industry , clear access to the unemployment compensation they desperately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay your bills , your bank account stays full .
It ’ s a trick Trump learned a long time ago .
Illinois , New York , California … all big-city blue states hit hard by COVID , all states that have felt the failures of the Trump administration acutely , now singled out as states that do not deserve federal aid .
COVID does not care who you voted for , but Trump does , and he seems happily willing to increase the nation ’ s suffering while helping to expand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle some grudges and score points with his weirdly death-seeking base .
And Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell , i.e .
the ones who can put a stop to this by making common cause with House Democrats against the menace in the White House , say nothing .
Well , that ’ s not entirely accurate .
Mitch McConnell is saying plenty , and in doing so , he has given away the game .
The Senate majority leader will be perfectly happy to allow a vote on an aid package for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Any legislation must contain liability protections for businesses and employers .
“ The next pandemic coming will be the lawsuit pandemic in the wake of this one , ” McConnell said on Monday .
“ So we need to prevent that now when we have the opportunity to do it.
” Fact : States with more rural populations have not yet felt the full burden of the COVID pandemic , though that day is coming , because a large number of them are standing down their stay-at-home strictures so businesses can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported Trump in 2016 .
Fact : States with large cities have taken the pandemic straight in the teeth , and are hurting badly .
Many of these states did not support Trump in 2016 , particularly New York and California .
The leaders in these states will likely be willing to swallow any number of compromises to get the aid money flowing .
Fact : The states that are reopening now are doing so too early , and the White House ’ s own death rate model underscores this .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration has revised its estimated death toll by August from roughly 60,000 people to roughly 74,000 people .
That amounts to 14,000 more dead people because of these reopening states .
No other factor was introduced to the model that can explain this jump in the mortality rate .
Deduction : Trump and McConnell know these states are reopening too soon , but they don ’ t care , because they need to make the money happy .
To protect the money , McConnell wants to shoehorn in a provision to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being sued by employees or customers because they got sick after businesses opened too soon .
The blue states need that aid , and McConnell knows he has their congressional representatives over a barrel .
The utter cruelty of these tactics , the nihilistic self-destruction of it in the face of more than 55,000 dead and thousands more to follow , has scarce precedent in the annals of U.S. politics .
Instead of helping the entire country in this time of grievous crisis , Trump and McConnell are putting their boots to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideologically unfit .
It will be a damn miracle if the nation survives this , and them .

Donald Trump and his top Republican allies in Congress are fighting a war, and the battle lines have begun to clarify themselves. Their war is not being waged against COVID-19, the pandemic that has killed tens of thousands in this nation alone. Their war is being waged against the nation itself, and specifically against areas of the nation that are heavy on population but light on Trump supporters.
In other words, the big-city blue states, whose governors have refused to fawn over Trump’s gibberish-flecked “leadership” during this crisis. Trump has been treating the delivery of federal aid to the states like his own personal spoils system: rewarding loyalty, punishing critics, and demanding to be praised for doing his job whenever he actually does it, but especially when he doesn’t.
The issue has come to a head as governors from both parties are screaming for desperately needed federal aid for their respective states. Congress, particularly the Republican Senate, has been dragging its feet over passing a bill to provide states-specific aid, because doing so would be an example of government working to help the people, and such a thing is ideologically unsound on McConnell’s side of the aisle.
“Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help?” Trump tweeted on Monday night.
“It’s not fair to the taxpayers of Florida,” said Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida on Monday. “We sit here, we live within our means, and then New York, Illinois, California and other states don’t. And we’re supposed to go bail them out? That’s not right.”
For the record, Scott’s “we live within our means” quip is a hot hoot. The only reason Florida can claim to be living within its budgetary means is by denying hundreds of thousands of residents, many in the service industry, clear access to the unemployment compensation they desperately need. If you don’t pay your bills, your bank account stays full. It’s a trick Trump learned a long time ago.
Instead of helping the entire country in this time of grievous crisis, Trump and McConnell are putting their boots to the neck of every state they deem ideologically unfit.
Illinois, New York, California … all big-city blue states hit hard by COVID, all states that have felt the failures of the Trump administration acutely, now singled out as states that do not deserve federal aid. COVID does not care who you voted for, but Trump does, and he seems happily willing to increase the nation’s suffering while helping to expand the reach of the pandemic in order to settle some grudges and score points with his weirdly death-seeking base.
And Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell, i.e. the ones who can put a stop to this by making common cause with House Democrats against the menace in the White House, say nothing. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. Mitch McConnell is saying plenty, and in doing so, he has given away the game.
The Senate majority leader will be perfectly happy to allow a vote on an aid package for the states, but with one catch: Any legislation must contain liability protections for businesses and employers. “The next pandemic coming will be the lawsuit pandemic in the wake of this one,” McConnell said on Monday. “So we need to prevent that now when we have the opportunity to do it.”
Fact: States with more rural populations have not yet felt the full burden of the COVID pandemic, though that day is coming, because a large number of them are standing down their stay-at-home strictures so businesses can get running again. Many of these states supported Trump in 2016.
Fact: States with large cities have taken the pandemic straight in the teeth, and are hurting badly. Many of these states did not support Trump in 2016, particularly New York and California. The leaders in these states will likely be willing to swallow any number of compromises to get the aid money flowing.
Fact: The states that are reopening now are doing so too early, and the White House’s own death rate model underscores this. According to CNN’s Tuesday morning broadcast, the administration has revised its estimated death toll by August from roughly 60,000 people to roughly 74,000 people. That amounts to 14,000 more dead people because of these reopening states. No other factor was introduced to the model that can explain this jump in the mortality rate.
Deduction: Trump and McConnell know these states are reopening too soon, but they don’t care, because they need to make the money happy. To protect the money, McConnell wants to shoehorn in a provision to the states’ aid package that prevents businesses from being sued by employees or customers because they got sick after businesses opened too soon. The blue states need that aid, and McConnell knows he has their congressional representatives over a barrel.
The utter cruelty of these tactics, the nihilistic self-destruction of it in the face of more than 55,000 dead and thousands more to follow, has scarce precedent in the annals of U.S. politics. Instead of helping the entire country in this time of grievous crisis, Trump and McConnell are putting their boots to the neck of every state they deem ideologically unfit. It will be a damn miracle if the nation survives this, and them.
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--2020-04-28--Democrats Poised to Propose Medicare for Those Who’ve Lost Health Coverage

Democratic lawmakers are expected to announce a proposal this week for expanding Medicare to cover millions of people who lost their employer-sponsored health coverage due to the COVID-19 pandemic , according to health care advocates on Capitol Hill .
Meanwhile , public support for a Medicare for All universal health care system has surged during the COVID-19 outbreak .
An estimated 9.2 million workers likely lost health coverage sponsored by employers over the past month as workplaces shuttered due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus , according to the Economic Policy Institute ( EPI ) .
Spouses and family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health plan , so millions more people have likely lost health coverage during this unprecedented public health crisis .
Thanks to loss of income , even people who retain health insurance independent from employment are having trouble paying for it .
As Truthout has reported , researchers estimate that 2 million people living without health insurance will be hospitalized for COVID-19 , putting further strain on hospitals that have been overwhelmed by the crisis .
On Wednesday , Reps. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Washington ) and Joe Kennedy ( D-Massachusetts ) are expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to expand Medicare to cover people who have lost employer-sponsored health insurance during the COVID-19 crisis .
Medicare is the popular government insurance program for people of retirement age , and progressives have long dreamed of replacing for-profit insurance companies with a single-payer , Medicare for All program that covers everyone .
“ This crisis has shown some of the extreme downsides of linking health coverage to specific jobs , and I think the long-run efficiency benefits of de-linking these would be large and welcome for most workers , ” said EPI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over email .
While details about the Medicare Crisis Program are forthcoming , experts say expanding Medicare to cover newly uninsured people would benefit public health and provide a boost to the beleaguered economy .
As of Tuesday , there were more than 1 million COVID-19 cases across the United States , and more than 57,000 people have died of complications related to the disease , according to The New York Times .
Over the past five weeks , more than 26 million people filed unemployment claims after losing their jobs due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who lose their health coverage with Medicare during the crisis would leave them with more money to spend , because their income and savings would not be depleted by health care costs .
That means more people would be likely to spend more money once stay-at-home orders are lifted , helping the economy recover .
Under the current system , more than half of all Americans worry about being able to pay medical bills in the event of a serious accident or illness , and Bivens said that insurance costs may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely that private health insurance premiums will jump substantially in the next year as the costs of covering coronavirus patients becomes clear , ” he said .
“ All else being equal , these higher premium payments will crowd out space for wage growth and/or harm businesses margins.
” Private insurers have said they would waive co-pays and deductibles for telemedicine and treatment for COVID-19 , but many have so far failed to reduce financial barriers to telemedicine for patients stuck at home , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complex and fragmented mix of public programs and for-profit businesses , and the shift toward telemedicine has been cumbersome .
Meanwhile , health care is shaping up to be the defining issue of the 2020 elections .
Health care already topped the list of issues on the minds of voters before the pandemic , which has exposed glaring problems with the nation ’ s health system .
Nearly half of respondents to a new Newsy/Ipsos poll said the COVID-19 outbreak made them more likely to support Medicare for All , including 66 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans .
Another recent poll found support for Medicare for All at 69 percent .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , the democratic socialist from Vermont who has suspended but not ended his historic campaign for president , is currently the only major presidential candidate who supports Medicare for All .
Former Vice President Joe Biden proposes to create a public insurance program that would compete with private insurers , a plan that would expand health coverage but leave millions of people uninsured and underinsured , according to analysis by Public Citizen .
With a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out-of-pocket costs for health care that would be eliminated under Medicare for All .
About 100 million people would likely remain on private , employer-sponsored insurance plans , putting them at risk of a disruption in coverage if they switch or lose their jobs .
While Biden is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , progressives see an opportunity in the surge of public enthusiasm for expanding Medicare now that millions of people have lost their jobs and health coverage .
“ Now you have the entire hole blown through the argument as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have health care or not , or rather that your health care status should be conditional based on your employment , ” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , a popular Sanders surrogate and Medicare for All proponent , in a recent interview with The Hill .
While the Medicare Crisis Program may be temporary and some people will regain health coverage if and when they return to work , Bivens said Democrats would be wise to make those who sign up the first group of enrollees in a public health plan that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help businesses reopen and aid the economic recovery , because employers would no longer spend money on health plans for their employees .
Allowing more people to sign up for Medicare would also be a step toward a more equitable and affordable health care system , Bivens said .
“ Using the crisis of employer-provided health insurance losses to start building up a public plan for people seems like it ’ s very smart , ” he said .

Democratic lawmakers are expected to announce a proposal this week for expanding Medicare to cover millions of people who lost their employer-sponsored health coverage due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to health care advocates on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, public support for a Medicare for All universal health care system has surged during the COVID-19 outbreak.
An estimated 9.2 million workers likely lost health coverage sponsored by employers over the past month as workplaces shuttered due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Spouses and family members are often covered by the same health plan, so millions more people have likely lost health coverage during this unprecedented public health crisis. Thanks to loss of income, even people who retain health insurance independent from employment are having trouble paying for it. As Truthout has reported, researchers estimate that 2 million people living without health insurance will be hospitalized for COVID-19, putting further strain on hospitals that have been overwhelmed by the crisis.
On Wednesday, Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Joe Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) are expected to propose the Medicare Crisis Program, a plan to expand Medicare to cover people who have lost employer-sponsored health insurance during the COVID-19 crisis. Medicare is the popular government insurance program for people of retirement age, and progressives have long dreamed of replacing for-profit insurance companies with a single-payer, Medicare for All program that covers everyone.
“This crisis has shown some of the extreme downsides of linking health coverage to specific jobs, and I think the long-run efficiency benefits of de-linking these would be large and welcome for most workers,” said EPI research director Josh Bivens in an interview over email.
While details about the Medicare Crisis Program are forthcoming, experts say expanding Medicare to cover newly uninsured people would benefit public health and provide a boost to the beleaguered economy. As of Tuesday, there were more than 1 million COVID-19 cases across the United States, and more than 57,000 people have died of complications related to the disease, according to The New York Times. Over the past five weeks, more than 26 million people filed unemployment claims after losing their jobs due to coronavirus.
Bivens told Truthout that covering people who lose their health coverage with Medicare during the crisis would leave them with more money to spend, because their income and savings would not be depleted by health care costs. That means more people would be likely to spend more money once stay-at-home orders are lifted, helping the economy recover.
Under the current system, more than half of all Americans worry about being able to pay medical bills in the event of a serious accident or illness, and Bivens said that insurance costs may be exacerbated by the pandemic.
“It is likely that private health insurance premiums will jump substantially in the next year as the costs of covering coronavirus patients becomes clear,” he said. “All else being equal, these higher premium payments will crowd out space for wage growth and/or harm businesses margins.”
Private insurers have said they would waive co-pays and deductibles for telemedicine and treatment for COVID-19, but many have so far failed to reduce financial barriers to telemedicine for patients stuck at home, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The nation’s health care system is a complex and fragmented mix of public programs and for-profit businesses, and the shift toward telemedicine has been cumbersome.
Meanwhile, health care is shaping up to be the defining issue of the 2020 elections. Health care already topped the list of issues on the minds of voters before the pandemic, which has exposed glaring problems with the nation’s health system. Nearly half of respondents to a new Newsy/Ipsos poll said the COVID-19 outbreak made them more likely to support Medicare for All, including 66 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans. Another recent poll found support for Medicare for All at 69 percent.
Nearly half of respondents to a new Newsy/Ipsos poll said the COVID-19 outbreak made them more likely to support Medicare for All.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who has suspended but not ended his historic campaign for president, is currently the only major presidential candidate who supports Medicare for All. Former Vice President Joe Biden proposes to create a public insurance program that would compete with private insurers, a plan that would expand health coverage but leave millions of people uninsured and underinsured, according to analysis by Public Citizen.
With a public option, patients would still pay out-of-pocket costs for health care that would be eliminated under Medicare for All. About 100 million people would likely remain on private, employer-sponsored insurance plans, putting them at risk of a disruption in coverage if they switch or lose their jobs. While Biden is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, progressives see an opportunity in the surge of public enthusiasm for expanding Medicare now that millions of people have lost their jobs and health coverage.
“Now you have the entire hole blown through the argument as to why employment should be the reason why you have health care or not, or rather that your health care status should be conditional based on your employment,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a popular Sanders surrogate and Medicare for All proponent, in a recent interview with The Hill.
While the Medicare Crisis Program may be temporary and some people will regain health coverage if and when they return to work, Bivens said Democrats would be wise to make those who sign up the first group of enrollees in a public health plan that would become permanent after the pandemic. This could help businesses reopen and aid the economic recovery, because employers would no longer spend money on health plans for their employees. Allowing more people to sign up for Medicare would also be a step toward a more equitable and affordable health care system, Bivens said.
“Using the crisis of employer-provided health insurance losses to start building up a public plan for people seems like it’s very smart,” he said.
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.