truthout--2020-09-10--We Must Tell the Truth About California Fires — This Is Climate Change

The skies of the Bay Area and Northern California turned a dark orange as 90 major fires burn in the western United States , from San Diego to the Canadian border .
At least seven people have died as a result of the fires , which have already burned 2.5 million acres in California alone .
Despite heavy coverage in the mainstream media , however , few outlets are highlighting the link between the blazes and the accelerating climate crisis .
“ The fact is that TV news is completely abdicating its responsibility when it comes to telling the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , ” says Leah Stokes , assistant professor of political science at the University of California , Santa Barbara , and a researcher on climate and energy policy .
“ This is climate change .
It ’ s not rocket science .
And when will the media start calling it that ?
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We begin today ’ s show in California , where people in the Bay Area and across Northern California woke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blanket of smoke from the state ’ s massive climate change-fueled wildfires smothered the region .
The thick smoke blotted out so much sunlight , temperatures dropped well below forecasters ’ predictions , with meteorologists comparing the effect to a nuclear winter .
The unprecedented conditions came as the West Coast faces a fire season that has killed at least seven people , forced major evacuations and already burned two-and-a-half million acres in California alone .
That ’ s 20 times the land burned last year , and there are months left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Winds from some of California ’ s more than 20 massive fires and from blazes as far away as Oregon and Washington blew into the Bay Area to create the conditions , which some described as “ apocalyptic.
” This is Oakland resident Carljuan Anderson .
AMY GOODMAN : The fires have also devastated Oregon , where dozens of wildfires have destroyed hundreds of homes and even entire towns .
Oregon Governor Kate Brown said it could be the greatest loss of lives and property from fire in the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter by reporter Christine Pitawanich with Oregon ’ s KGW News .
It shows downtown Stayton , about an hour south of Portland , just after noon Tuesday .
The sky is blood red .
AMY GOODMAN : Meanwhile , wildfires in the neighboring state of Washington have burned nearly 600,000 acres since Labor Day .
The fires devastating the West come as a record-shattering heat wave , mass blackouts and the coronavirus pandemic roil the West .
The scientists are unflinching in their analysis : The climate crisis is here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to work the fields , incarcerated firefighters and other vulnerable communities first and hardest .
This is California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking Tuesday .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , for more , we ’ re joined by Leah Stokes , assistant professor of political science at the University of California , Santa Barbara , a researcher on climate and energy policy .
She ’ s the author of Short Circuiting Policy : Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States .
Can you describe what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon to Washington ?
The media talks about it as bizarre and crazy .
Still there is not a lot of use of the word “ climate change.
” LEAH STOKES : That ’ s right , Amy .
It ’ s quite sad that your program and one newscaster at CBS News named Jeff Berardelli are pretty much the only TV news stations that are willing to use the word “ climate change.
” Last month , during August , when the fires of course had already started , there were over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC , NBC and CBS .
This is according to Media Matters .
And of those more than 100 segments , I ’ m talking about five full segments — that ’ s it — that even mentioned the word “ climate change.
” And three of those five were done by one person , Jeff Berardelli , who ’ s a wonderful meteorologist who actually cares about talking about climate change .
But the fact is that TV news is completely abdicating its responsibility when it comes to telling the truth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , which is , of course , not just these fires , but massive , unprecedented heat waves .
The fires that got really bad over the weekend were fueled in large part by unprecedented heat in counties like Los Angeles County , which set heat wave records of 121 degrees Fahrenheit , Ventura County , Santa Barbara County , Inland .
I mean , the temperatures were just unseen before in modern human history .
So , this is climate change .
It ’ s not rocket science .
And when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Professor Stokes , could you also talk about what ’ s been pointed out ?
Because some think that the reason that people conclude that this is an effect of climate change is that now records are kept , whereas previously they weren ’ t .
But , in fact , in California , since 1932 , fire records have been kept .
And the worst fires have occurred — the 10 worst fires have occurred between the year 2000 and the present .
LEAH STOKES : Yes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a really great one , is probably going out of date as we speak .
You know , as you mentioned at the top of the hour , we ’ re talking about two-and-a-half million acres that have already burned .
And that is , as Amy mentioned , 20 times what had burned at this time last year .
And we know , because of research , that the fire season across the western United States has lengthened by two-and-a-half months .
So , we ’ re not really in fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire season year-round .
And , you know , this isn ’ t a question of modern recordkeeping .
It ’ s a question of burning fossil fuels , which is what we ’ ve been doing , which has been heating up the planet and , as scientists tell us , have increased fire risk by 500 % .
That ’ s the kind of increase that we ’ re seeing as a result of climate change .
AMY GOODMAN : You know , I was talking with family last night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was afternoon there , and they took me outside on Skype , and it was dark .
But , Professor Stokes , can you explain the colors that are being experienced , from pumpkin orange to purple to complete darkness ?
What exactly is causing all of this ?
And how do you think the governor is dealing with it ?
And then talk about President Trump .
LEAH STOKES : Sure .
So , what happened with these giant wildfires is really unprecedented weather that we ’ ve never seen before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very active on Twitter , named Daniel Swain .
And what he has been talking about is how overwhelmed he is by even trying to track the amount of fires that are going on right now .
And these fires are creating their own weather .
They ’ re creating clouds and kind of tornado-like conditions .
And what that is doing is like a volcano eruption .
It ’ s pushing particulate matter way up into the stratosphere , way higher than even airplanes fly .
And that is like a volcanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re dealing with here is particulate matter blocking out the sun .
And so , for example , people posted their solar panels and showed that they were getting zero solar radiation , no energy being produced , because the sun was not making its way to the ground .
This is what ’ s happened in the past when we ’ ve had huge volcanic eruptions .
It ’ s really a disturbing effect , and I can understand why people are so freaked out .
In terms of the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see him stepping up and using the words “ climate change ” very actively .
Others have pointed out , however , that he has approved fracking permits in the recent months during the pandemic , and there ’ s questions as to why California is not turning away more aggressively from oil and gas extraction .
And then , when it comes to our climate-denier-in-chief , Donald Trump , you know , he doesn ’ t even believe in climate change .
He doesn ’ t listen to scientists , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying about it and playing down the death toll or it ’ s climate change .
And so , really , we have zero leadership for this emergency from Washington , D.C. And it ’ s well past time that we have a president who can use the words “ climate change ” and who can trust and believe in science .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Professor Stokes , you mentioned earlier fossil fuel , of course , which is one of the leading causes of accelerated climate change .
And in your article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We Plan for the Future in California ?
” you write , quote , “ In an ironic twist , burning fossil fuels will become less reliable in our hotter world.
” Can you explain ?
LEAH STOKES : Sure .
So , these heat waves that we ’ ve been dealing with , really all summer , they ’ re unprecedented .
And that ’ s because science has told us that we have , again , 500 % more risk for heat waves across the western United States , given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve already caused .
We have warmed the planet by one degree Celsius .
In certain parts of California , such as where I live , Santa Barbara , the warming is actually higher .
It ’ s two degrees Fahrenheit — sorry , two degrees Celsius , in Santa Barbara and in Ventura County .
So , certain parts of our planet are really more vulnerable to climate change , and they warm up faster .
And that is certainly parts of California .
So , what ’ s been happening is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Arizona , Nevada , California , they ’ ve been baked in a big regional heat wave over the last few weeks .
And that creates a big stress on our electricity system , because people in Phoenix need to turn on their air conditioning , people in Los Angeles need to turn that on — all across the region .
And so that means that we don ’ t have as much electricity resources than we would have otherwise .
And so , there have been regional shortages , particularly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks ago , the grid actually went into rolling blackouts .
And even this past week there have been shortages and some shutoffs in some areas .
Now , what happened a couple weeks ago is still being understood , but one of the factors is that several gas plants — these are fossil gas plants that operate in California — they went offline unexpectedly .
And what people pointed out is that when the temperature gets really high , just like if you ’ ve ever been in an airport when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t take off — when the temperature gets very high , fossil plants can not produce the same amount of electricity .
They can not operate .
And so , as we deal with more and more heat waves , our electricity system is going to become a lot less reliable .
AMY GOODMAN : And President Trump ’ s connection to the fossil fuel companies , one ?
And , two , the people who are fighting these fires ?
We have been dealing with this extensively on Democracy Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incarcerated firefighters who themselves are dealing with COVID , and then the farmworkers who are out in the fields being told they still have to be there ?
LEAH STOKES : Yes .
There are so many tragic parts of this story , and so many of the other ones that you touched on at the top of the hour .
These are very dark days that we are living in .
Unfortunately , what many people don ’ t know is that the CARES Act , which was the coronavirus stimulus bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few months ago , that was in large part a fossil fuel bailout .
We do not even know how much of our money , as people living in the United States , has gone towards fossil fuel companies , because the federal government refuses to tell us .
But we do know , thanks to the really dogged reporting of a few women , including Antonia Juhasz , writing for Sierra magazine , and Alexis Goldstein , writing for Truthout , that a lot of money — we ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel companies .
Alexis just reported , for example , that the Federal Reserve literally bought corporate bonds , corporate debt , of a number of fossil fuel companies .
So you and I now own corporate debt for ExxonMobil , Chevron , BP , Marathon Petroleum and the electric utility company Southern Company .
These are terrible corporations that have been denying climate change for decades , and they ’ re not responsible corporate actors .
And yet , what has the Trump administration done ?
It has given them a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when they were not doing well financially , not because of COVID , but because of their own bad decisions .
So , really , what we are living through right now is a massive fossil fuel bailout .
What the federal government is doing is not helping everyday Americans stay employed , pay their rent , pay their electricity bills .
What they are doing is helping fossil fuel companies .
And that ’ s really wrong .
Amy , you also mentioned , of course , the prison labor problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that issue has been really compounded by the COVID crisis .
In Santa Barbara County , where I live , there is one prison , where pretty much 100 % of the people , about a thousand people who are in that prison , have had COVID .
In the early parts of the pandemic , this was one of the worst outbreaks in the entire country .
And prisons across this country and across California have really been on the frontlines of COVID .
And so , one thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help people out in prisons , is early releases .
Unfortunately , that means that the firefighters who we rely on through prison labor , which is a problematic situation , we don ’ t have as many of them as a result , and so we don ’ t have the same amount of firefighters .
And we also have a terrible policy in California that after people have been released from prison , they ’ re not allowed to work as firefighters for an actual living wage .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for fighting our fires is really unethical , not just exploiting people when they ’ re in prison , but , after we ’ ve trained them and given them skills , not letting them use those skills for pay .
And finally , the farmworkers .
You ’ re right .
Many undocumented Hispanic people living in this country are on the frontlines of COVID , on the frontlines of the climate crisis .
And they are still out there working in the fields during a pandemic and during this absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , when you breathe in that bad air , it also makes it more likely that you ’ ll die of COVID .
AMY GOODMAN : We have 30 seconds .
The future , Leah Stokes , what needs to happen now ?
LEAH STOKES : We need to elect a new president .
You know , Joe Biden , for all his flaws , has come out with an absolutely unprecedented climate change plan , and he ’ s targeting 100 % clean electricity by 2035 .
So , if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we could take back the Senate for the Democrats , we would actually have a chance to tackle the climate crisis .
AMY GOODMAN : Leah Stokes , I want to thank you for being with us , assistant professor of political science at University of California , Santa Barbara , researcher on climate and energy policy .
We ’ ll link to your piece in The Atlantic , headlined “ How Can We Plan for the Future in California ?
” Author of Short Circuiting Policy : Interest Groups and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the American States .
When we come back , a new ad campaign targets African American and Latinx Americans to join in the vaccine trials .
What are many ’ s hesitation ?
We look back at medical experimentation in the United States .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Summer Madness ” by Kool and the Gang .
The band ’ s co-founder , singer and composer Ronald Khalis Bell has passed away at the age of 68 .

The skies of the Bay Area and Northern California turned a dark orange as 90 major fires burn in the western United States, from San Diego to the Canadian border. At least seven people have died as a result of the fires, which have already burned 2.5 million acres in California alone. Despite heavy coverage in the mainstream media, however, few outlets are highlighting the link between the blazes and the accelerating climate crisis. “The fact is that TV news is completely abdicating its responsibility when it comes to telling the truth of what the West is dealing with right now,” says Leah Stokes, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a researcher on climate and energy policy. “This is climate change. It’s not rocket science. And when will the media start calling it that?”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in California, where people in the Bay Area and across Northern California woke up Wednesday to dark orange skies as a blanket of smoke from the state’s massive climate change-fueled wildfires smothered the region. The thick smoke blotted out so much sunlight, temperatures dropped well below forecasters’ predictions, with meteorologists comparing the effect to a nuclear winter.
The unprecedented conditions came as the West Coast faces a fire season that has killed at least seven people, forced major evacuations and already burned two-and-a-half million acres in California alone. That’s 20 times the land burned last year, and there are months left in California’s ever-growing fire season. Winds from some of California’s more than 20 massive fires and from blazes as far away as Oregon and Washington blew into the Bay Area to create the conditions, which some described as “apocalyptic.” This is Oakland resident Carljuan Anderson.
CARLJUAN ANDERSON: I was wondering what time it was, and then I looked outside. It looked like Doomsday. I mean, you could tell something is horribly going wrong. And as far as going to work and breathing in all this, this pollution is definitely not healthy for us in the Bay Area. Related Story News Analysis | Environment & Health The Fed Invested Public Money in Fossil Fuel Firms Driving Environmental Racism The Federal Reserve should not be propping up a dying industry with a track record of harming communities of color. Truthout
AMY GOODMAN: The fires have also devastated Oregon, where dozens of wildfires have destroyed hundreds of homes and even entire towns. Oregon Governor Kate Brown said it could be the greatest loss of lives and property from fire in the state’s history. This is a video posted on Twitter by reporter Christine Pitawanich with Oregon’s KGW News. It shows downtown Stayton, about an hour south of Portland, just after noon Tuesday. The sky is blood red.
CHRISTINE PITAWANICH: This right here is downtown Stayton. You can see the red hue, the red-orange glow in the sky. There’s ash that is falling visibly in front of — you know, when we were driving here, in front of the headlights of the car. But downtown, basically empty here, besides a few people, a few cars here, people walking around and cars. But the smell of smoke is heavy.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, wildfires in the neighboring state of Washington have burned nearly 600,000 acres since Labor Day. The fires devastating the West come as a record-shattering heat wave, mass blackouts and the coronavirus pandemic roil the West. The scientists are unflinching in their analysis: The climate crisis is here. And it’s impacting farmworkers still forced to work the fields, incarcerated firefighters and other vulnerable communities first and hardest. This is California Governor Gavin Newsom speaking Tuesday.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: But I quite literally have no patience for climate change deniers. It simply follows — completely inconsistent, that point of view, with the reality on the ground, the facts as we are experiencing. You may not believe it intellectually, but your own eyes, your own experiences tell a different story.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by Leah Stokes, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a researcher on climate and energy policy. She’s the author of Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States.
Can you describe what we are seeing, from California to Oregon to Washington? The media talks about it as bizarre and crazy. Still there is not a lot of use of the word “climate change.”
LEAH STOKES: That’s right, Amy. It’s quite sad that your program and one newscaster at CBS News named Jeff Berardelli are pretty much the only TV news stations that are willing to use the word “climate change.” Last month, during August, when the fires of course had already started, there were over 100 TV news segments on this on ABC, NBC and CBS. This is according to Media Matters. And of those more than 100 segments, I’m talking about five full segments — that’s it — that even mentioned the word “climate change.” And three of those five were done by one person, Jeff Berardelli, who’s a wonderful meteorologist who actually cares about talking about climate change.
But the fact is that TV news is completely abdicating its responsibility when it comes to telling the truth of what the West is dealing with right now, which is, of course, not just these fires, but massive, unprecedented heat waves. The fires that got really bad over the weekend were fueled in large part by unprecedented heat in counties like Los Angeles County, which set heat wave records of 121 degrees Fahrenheit, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Inland. I mean, the temperatures were just unseen before in modern human history. So, this is climate change. It’s not rocket science. And when will the media start calling it that?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Stokes, could you also talk about what’s been pointed out? Because some think that the reason that people conclude that this is an effect of climate change is that now records are kept, whereas previously they weren’t. But, in fact, in California, since 1932, fire records have been kept. And the worst fires have occurred — the 10 worst fires have occurred between the year 2000 and the present.
LEAH STOKES: Yes. And unfortunately, that statistic, which is a really great one, is probably going out of date as we speak. You know, as you mentioned at the top of the hour, we’re talking about two-and-a-half million acres that have already burned. And that is, as Amy mentioned, 20 times what had burned at this time last year. And we know, because of research, that the fire season across the western United States has lengthened by two-and-a-half months.
So, we’re not really in fire seasons anymore; we’re in fire season year-round. And, you know, this isn’t a question of modern recordkeeping. It’s a question of burning fossil fuels, which is what we’ve been doing, which has been heating up the planet and, as scientists tell us, have increased fire risk by 500%. That’s the kind of increase that we’re seeing as a result of climate change.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, I was talking with family last night, last night in New York, which was afternoon there, and they took me outside on Skype, and it was dark. But, Professor Stokes, can you explain the colors that are being experienced, from pumpkin orange to purple to complete darkness? What exactly is causing all of this? And how do you think the governor is dealing with it? And then talk about President Trump.
LEAH STOKES: Sure. So, what happened with these giant wildfires is really unprecedented weather that we’ve never seen before. There is a wonderful climate scientist, very active on Twitter, named Daniel Swain. And what he has been talking about is how overwhelmed he is by even trying to track the amount of fires that are going on right now.
And these fires are creating their own weather. They’re creating clouds and kind of tornado-like conditions. And what that is doing is like a volcano eruption. It’s pushing particulate matter way up into the stratosphere, way higher than even airplanes fly. And that is like a volcanic eruption. And so, what we’re dealing with here is particulate matter blocking out the sun. And so, for example, people posted their solar panels and showed that they were getting zero solar radiation, no energy being produced, because the sun was not making its way to the ground. This is what’s happened in the past when we’ve had huge volcanic eruptions. It’s really a disturbing effect, and I can understand why people are so freaked out.
In terms of the governor of California, it’s great to see him stepping up and using the words “climate change” very actively. Others have pointed out, however, that he has approved fracking permits in the recent months during the pandemic, and there’s questions as to why California is not turning away more aggressively from oil and gas extraction.
And then, when it comes to our climate-denier-in-chief, Donald Trump, you know, he doesn’t even believe in climate change. He doesn’t listen to scientists, whether that’s the coronavirus pandemic and lying about it and playing down the death toll or it’s climate change. And so, really, we have zero leadership for this emergency from Washington, D.C. And it’s well past time that we have a president who can use the words “climate change” and who can trust and believe in science.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Stokes, you mentioned earlier fossil fuel, of course, which is one of the leading causes of accelerated climate change. And in your article in The Atlantic, “How Can We Plan for the Future in California?” you write, quote, “In an ironic twist, burning fossil fuels will become less reliable in our hotter world.” Can you explain?
LEAH STOKES: Sure. So, these heat waves that we’ve been dealing with, really all summer, they’re unprecedented. And that’s because science has told us that we have, again, 500% more risk for heat waves across the western United States, given the amount of climate change that we’ve already caused. We have warmed the planet by one degree Celsius. In certain parts of California, such as where I live, Santa Barbara, the warming is actually higher. It’s two degrees Fahrenheit — sorry, two degrees Celsius, in Santa Barbara and in Ventura County. So, certain parts of our planet are really more vulnerable to climate change, and they warm up faster. And that is certainly parts of California.
So, what’s been happening is that the West, whether it’s Arizona, Nevada, California, they’ve been baked in a big regional heat wave over the last few weeks. And that creates a big stress on our electricity system, because people in Phoenix need to turn on their air conditioning, people in Los Angeles need to turn that on — all across the region. And so that means that we don’t have as much electricity resources than we would have otherwise. And so, there have been regional shortages, particularly in California, for electricity. And a few weeks ago, the grid actually went into rolling blackouts. And even this past week there have been shortages and some shutoffs in some areas.
Now, what happened a couple weeks ago is still being understood, but one of the factors is that several gas plants — these are fossil gas plants that operate in California — they went offline unexpectedly. And what people pointed out is that when the temperature gets really high, just like if you’ve ever been in an airport when the temperature is really high and airplanes can’t take off — when the temperature gets very high, fossil plants cannot produce the same amount of electricity. They cannot operate. And so, as we deal with more and more heat waves, our electricity system is going to become a lot less reliable.
AMY GOODMAN: And President Trump’s connection to the fossil fuel companies, one? And, two, the people who are fighting these fires? We have been dealing with this extensively on Democracy Now! But, for example, the incarcerated firefighters who themselves are dealing with COVID, and then the farmworkers who are out in the fields being told they still have to be there?
LEAH STOKES: Yes. There are so many tragic parts of this story, and so many of the other ones that you touched on at the top of the hour. These are very dark days that we are living in.
Unfortunately, what many people don’t know is that the CARES Act, which was the coronavirus stimulus bill that Mitch McConnell helped steward through Congress a few months ago, that was in large part a fossil fuel bailout. We do not even know how much of our money, as people living in the United States, has gone towards fossil fuel companies, because the federal government refuses to tell us.
But we do know, thanks to the really dogged reporting of a few women, including Antonia Juhasz, writing for Sierra magazine, and Alexis Goldstein, writing for Truthout, that a lot of money — we’re talking billions of dollars — is going to fossil fuel companies. Alexis just reported, for example, that the Federal Reserve literally bought corporate bonds, corporate debt, of a number of fossil fuel companies. So you and I now own corporate debt for ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Marathon Petroleum and the electric utility company Southern Company. These are terrible corporations that have been denying climate change for decades, and they’re not responsible corporate actors. And yet, what has the Trump administration done? It has given them a lifeline and a handout, at a time when they were not doing well financially, not because of COVID, but because of their own bad decisions.
So, really, what we are living through right now is a massive fossil fuel bailout. What the federal government is doing is not helping everyday Americans stay employed, pay their rent, pay their electricity bills. What they are doing is helping fossil fuel companies. And that’s really wrong.
Amy, you also mentioned, of course, the prison labor problem when it comes to firefighting in California. And that issue has been really compounded by the COVID crisis. In Santa Barbara County, where I live, there is one prison, where pretty much 100% of the people, about a thousand people who are in that prison, have had COVID. In the early parts of the pandemic, this was one of the worst outbreaks in the entire country. And prisons across this country and across California have really been on the frontlines of COVID.
And so, one thing that Governor Newsom has done, in part to help people out in prisons, is early releases. Unfortunately, that means that the firefighters who we rely on through prison labor, which is a problematic situation, we don’t have as many of them as a result, and so we don’t have the same amount of firefighters. And we also have a terrible policy in California that after people have been released from prison, they’re not allowed to work as firefighters for an actual living wage. And so, the system that we have set up for fighting our fires is really unethical, not just exploiting people when they’re in prison, but, after we’ve trained them and given them skills, not letting them use those skills for pay.
And finally, the farmworkers. You’re right. Many undocumented Hispanic people living in this country are on the frontlines of COVID, on the frontlines of the climate crisis. And they are still out there working in the fields during a pandemic and during this absolutely horrendous air quality, which, of course, when you breathe in that bad air, it also makes it more likely that you’ll die of COVID.
AMY GOODMAN: We have 30 seconds. The future, Leah Stokes, what needs to happen now?
LEAH STOKES: We need to elect a new president. You know, Joe Biden, for all his flaws, has come out with an absolutely unprecedented climate change plan, and he’s targeting 100% clean electricity by 2035. So, if we could elect him to be the president and we could take back the Senate for the Democrats, we would actually have a chance to tackle the climate crisis.
AMY GOODMAN: Leah Stokes, I want to thank you for being with us, assistant professor of political science at University of California, Santa Barbara, researcher on climate and energy policy. We’ll link to your piece in The Atlantic, headlined “How Can We Plan for the Future in California?” Author of Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States.
When we come back, a new ad campaign targets African American and Latinx Americans to join in the vaccine trials. What are many’s hesitation? We look back at medical experimentation in the United States. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Summer Madness” by Kool and the Gang. The band’s co-founder, singer and composer Ronald Khalis Bell has passed away at the age of 68.


truthout--2020-09-10--Hospitals and Nursing Homes Are Failing to Separate COVID Patients

Nurses at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center were on edge as early as March when patients with COVID-19 began to show up in areas of the hospital that were not set aside to care for them .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had advised hospitals to isolate COVID patients to limit staff exposure and help conserve high-level personal protective equipment that ’ s been in short supply .
Yet COVID patients continued to be scattered through the Oakland hospital , according to complaints to California ’ s Division of Occupational Safety and Health .
The concerns included the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paiste-Ponder worked .
COVID patients on that floor were not staying in their rooms , either confused or uninterested in the rules .
Staff was not provided highly protective N95 respirators , said Mike Hill , a nurse in the hospital intensive care unit and the hospital ’ s chief representative for the California Nurses Association , which filed complaints to Cal/OSHA , the state ’ s workplace safety regulator .
“ It was just a matter of time before one of the nurses died on one of these floors , ” Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Paiste-Ponder , 59 , who died of complications from the virus on July 17 .
The concerns raised in Oakland also have swept across the U.S. , according to interviews , a review of government workplace safety complaints and health facility inspection reports .
A KHN investigation found that dozens of nursing homes and hospitals ignored official guidelines to separate COVID patients from those without the coronavirus , in some places fueling its spread and leaving staff unprepared and infected or , in some cases , dead .
As recently as July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 21,000 nurses found that 32 % work in a facility that does not have a dedicated COVID unit .
At that time , the coronavirus had reached all but 17 U.S. counties , data collected by Johns Hopkins University shows .
KHN discovered that COVID victims have been commingled with uninfected patients in health care facilities in states including California , Florida , New Jersey , Iowa , Ohio , Maryland and New York .
A COVID-19 outbreak was in full swing at the New Jersey Veterans Home at Paramus in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with dementia mingling in a day room — COVID-positive patients as well as others awaiting test results .
At the time , the center had already reported COVID infections among 119 residents and 46 virus-related deaths , according to a Medicare inspection report .
The assistant director of nursing at an Iowa nursing home insisted April 28 that they did “ not have any COVID in the building ” and overrode the orders of a community doctor to isolate several patients with fevers and falling oxygen levels , an inspection report shows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID log showed 61 patients with the virus and nine dead .
Federal work-safety officials have closed at least 30 complaints about patient mixing in hospitals nationwide without issuing a citation .
They include a claim that a Michigan hospital kept patients who tested negative for the virus in the COVID unit in May .
An upstate New York hospital also had COVID patients in the same unit as those with no infection , according to a closed complaint to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration .
Federal Health and Human Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them each day if they have a patient who came in without COVID-19 but had an apparent or confirmed case of the coronavirus 14 days later .
Hospitals filed 48,000 reports from June 21 through Aug. 28 , though the number reflects some double or additional counting of individual patients .
COVID patients have been mixed in with others for a variety of reasons .
Some hospitals report having limited tests , so patients carrying the virus are identified only after they had already exposed others .
In other cases , they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissive of federal guidelines , which carry no force of law .
And while federal Medicare officials have inspected nearly every U.S. nursing home in recent months and states have occasionally levied fines and cut off new admissions for isolation lapses , hospitals have seen less scrutiny .
At Alta Bates in Oakland , part of the Sutter Health network , hospital staff made it clear in official complaints to Cal/OSHA that they wanted administrators to follow the state ’ s unique law on aerosol-transmitted diseases .
From the start , some staffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus that has been increasingly shown to be transmitted by tiny particles that float through the air .
The regulations call for patients with a virus like COVID-19 to be moved to a specialized unit within five hours of identification — or to a specialized facility .
The rules say those patients should be in a room with a HEPA filter or with negative air pressure , meaning that air is circulated out a window or exhaust fan instead of drifting into the hallway .
Initially , in March , the hospital outfitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill .
But when a surge of patients failed to materialize , that unit was pared to 12 beds .
Since then , a steady stream of virus patients have been admitted , he said , many testing positive only days after admission — and after they ’ d been in regular rooms in the facility .
From March 10 through July 30 , Hill ’ s union and others filed eight complaints to Cal/OSHA , including allegations that the hospital failed to follow isolation rules for COVID patients , some on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done little .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom had ordered workplace safety officials to “ focus on … supporting compliance ” instead of enforcement except on the “ most serious violations.
” State officials responded to complaints by reaching out by mail and phone to “ ensure the proper virus prevention measures are in place , ” according to Frank Polizzi , a spokesperson for Cal/OSHA .
A third investigation related to transport workers not wearing N95 respirators while moving COVID-positive or possible coronavirus patients at a Sutter facility near the hospital resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ records show .
The string of complaints also says the hospital did not give staff the necessary personal protective equipment ( PPE ) under state law — an N95 respirator or something more protective — for caring for virus patients .
Instead , Hill said , staff on floors with COVID patients were provided lower-quality surgical masks , a concern reflected in complaints filed with Cal/OSHA .
Hill believes that Paiste-Ponder and another nurse on her floor caught the virus from COVID patients who did not remain in their rooms .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really need to happen , ” Hill said .
Polizzi said investigations into the July 17 death and another staff hospitalization are ongoing .
A Sutter Health spokesperson said the hospital takes allegations , including Cal/OSHA complaints , seriously and its highest priority is keeping patients and staff safe .
The statement also said “ cohorting , ” or the practice of grouping virus patients together , is a tool that “ must be considered in a greater context , including patient acuity , hospital census and other environmental factors.
” CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of keeping COVID patients sectioned off , noting that “ facilities could consider designating entire units within the facility , with dedicated [ staff ] , ” to care for COVID patients .
That approach succeeded at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha .
A recent study reported “ extensive ” viral contamination around COVID patients there , but noted that with “ standard ” infection control techniques in place , staffers who cared for COVID patients did not get the virus .
The hospital set up an isolation unit with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restricted access to the unit and trained staff to use well-developed protocols and N95 respirators — at a minimum .
What worked in Nebraska , though , is far from standard elsewhere .
Cynthia Butler , a nurse and National Nurses United member at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte , on Florida ’ s west coast , said she actually felt safer working in the COVID unit — where she knew what she was dealing with and had full PPE — than on a general medical floor .
She believes she caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 but was housed on a general floor in May .
A similar situation occurred in July , when another patient had an unexpected case of COVID — and Butler said she got another positive test herself .
She said both patients did not meet the hospital ’ s criteria for testing admitted patients , and the lapses leave her on edge , concerns she relayed to an OSHA inspector who reached out to her about a complaint her union filed about the facility .
“ Every time I go into work it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Butler said .
A spokesperson for HCA Healthcare , which owns the hospital , said it tests patients coming from long-term care , those going into surgery and those with virus symptoms .
She said staffers have access to PPE and practice vigilant sanitation , universal masking and social distancing .
The latter is not an option for Butler , though , who said she cleans , feeds and starts IVs for patients and offers reassurance when they are isolated from family .
“ I ’ m giving them the only comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Butler , who has since gone on unpaid leave over safety concerns .
“ I ’ m in there doing that and I ’ m not being protected.
” Given research showing that up to 45 % of COVID patients are asymptomatic , UCSF Medical Center is testing everyone who ’ s admitted , said Dr. Robert Harrison , a University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine professor who consults on occupational health at the hospital .
It ’ s done for the safety of staff and to reduce spread within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who test positive are separated into a COVID-only unit .
And staff who spent more than 15 minutes within 6 feet of a not-yet-identified COVID patient in a less-protective surgical mask are typically sent home for two weeks , he said .
Outside of academic medicine , though , front-line staff have turned to union leaders to push for such protections .
In Southern California , leaders of the National Union of Healthcare Workers filed an official complaint with state hospital inspectors about the risks posed by intermingled COVID patients at Fountain Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of for-profit Tenet Health .
There , the complaint said , patients were not routinely tested for COVID-19 upon admission .
One nursing assistant spent two successive 12-hour shifts caring for a patient on a general medical floor who required monitoring .
At the conclusion of the second shift , she was told the patient had just been found to be COVID-positive .
The worker had worn only a surgical mask — not an N95 respirator or any form of eye protection , according to the complaint to the California Department of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered a COVID test or quarantined before her next two shifts , the complaint said .
The public health department said it could not comment on a pending inspection .
Barbara Lewis , Southern California hospital division director with the union , said COVID patients were on the same floor as cancer patients and post-surgical patients who were walking the halls to speed their recovery .
She said managers took steps to separate the patients only after the union held a protest , spoke to local media and complained to state health officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital “ quickly implemented ” changes directed by state health authorities and does place some COVID patients on the same nursing unit as non-COVID patients during surges .
She said they are placed in single rooms with closed doors .
COVID tests are given by physician order , she added , and employees can access them at other places in the community .
It ’ s in contrast , Lewis said , to high-profile examples of the precautions that might be taken .
“ Now we ’ re seeing what ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re tested every day and treated with a high level of caution , ” Lewis said .
“ Yet we have thousands and thousands of health care workers going to work in a very scary environment.
” More than 40 % of the people who ’ ve died of COVID-19 lived in nursing homes or assisted living facilities , researchers have found .
Patient mixing has been a scattered concern at nursing homes , which Medicare officials discovered when they reviewed infection control practices at more than 15,000 facilities .
News reports have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home and at a Maryland home where the state levied a $ 70,000 fine for failing to keep infected patients away from those who weren ’ t sick — yet .
Another facing penalties was Fair Havens Center , a Miami Springs , Florida , nursing home where inspectors discovered that 11 roommates of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were put in rooms with other residents — putting them at heightened risk .
Florida regulators cut off admissions to the home and Medicare authorities levied a $ 235,000 civil monetary penalty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations at the facility told inspectors that isolating exposed patients would mean isolating the entire facility : Everyone had been exposed to the 32 staff members who tested positive for the virus , the report says .
Fair Havens Center did not respond to a request for comment .
In Iowa , Medicare officials declared a state of “ immediate jeopardy ” at Pearl Valley Rehabilitation and Care Center in Muscatine .
There , they discovered that staffers were in denial over an outbreak in their midst , with a nursing director overriding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolate or send residents to the emergency room .
Instead , officials found , in late April , the assistant nursing director kept COVID patients in the facility , citing a general order by their medical director to avoid sending patients to the ER “ if you can help it.
” Meanwhile , several patients were documented by facility staff to have fevers and falling oxygen levels , the Medicare inspection report shows .
Within two weeks , the facility discovered it had an outbreak , with 61 residents infected and nine dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials are investigating Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home in New Jersey , state Sen. Joseph Vitale said during a recent legislative hearing .
Resident council president Glenn Osborne testified during the hearing that the home ’ s residents were returned to the same shared rooms after hospitalizations .
Osborne , an honorably discharged Marine , said he saw more residents of the home die than fellow service members during his military service .
The Menlo Park and Paramus veterans homes — where inspectors saw dementia patients with and without the virus commingling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 180 COVID cases among residents , 90 among staff and at least 60 deaths .
A spokesperson for the homes said he could not comment due to pending litigation .
“ These deaths should not have happened , ” Osborne said .
“ Many of these deaths were absolutely avoidable , in my humble opinion .
”

As recently as July, a survey of nurses found that 32 percent work in facilities without a dedicated COVID unit.
Nurses at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center were on edge as early as March when patients with COVID-19 began to show up in areas of the hospital that were not set aside to care for them.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had advised hospitals to isolate COVID patients to limit staff exposure and help conserve high-level personal protective equipment that’s been in short supply.
Yet COVID patients continued to be scattered through the Oakland hospital, according to complaints to California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The concerns included the sixth-floor medical unit where veteran nurse Janine Paiste-Ponder worked.
COVID patients on that floor were not staying in their rooms, either confused or uninterested in the rules. Staff was not provided highly protective N95 respirators, said Mike Hill, a nurse in the hospital intensive care unit and the hospital’s chief representative for the California Nurses Association, which filed complaints to Cal/OSHA, the state’s workplace safety regulator.
“It was just a matter of time before one of the nurses died on one of these floors,” Hill said.
Two nurses fell ill, including Paiste-Ponder, 59, who died of complications from the virus on July 17.
The concerns raised in Oakland also have swept across the U.S., according to interviews, a review of government workplace safety complaints and health facility inspection reports. A KHN investigation found that dozens of nursing homes and hospitals ignored official guidelines to separate COVID patients from those without the coronavirus, in some places fueling its spread and leaving staff unprepared and infected or, in some cases, dead.
As recently as July, a National Nurses United survey of more than 21,000 nurses found that 32% work in a facility that does not have a dedicated COVID unit. At that time, the coronavirus had reached all but 17 U.S. counties, data collected by Johns Hopkins University shows.
KHN discovered that COVID victims have been commingled with uninfected patients in health care facilities in states including California, Florida, New Jersey, Iowa, Ohio, Maryland and New York.
A COVID-19 outbreak was in full swing at the New Jersey Veterans Home at Paramus in late April when health inspectors observed residents with dementia mingling in a day room — COVID-positive patients as well as others awaiting test results. At the time, the center had already reported COVID infections among 119 residents and 46 virus-related deaths, according to a Medicare inspection report.
The assistant director of nursing at an Iowa nursing home insisted April 28 that they did “not have any COVID in the building” and overrode the orders of a community doctor to isolate several patients with fevers and falling oxygen levels, an inspection report shows.
By mid-May, the facility’s COVID log showed 61 patients with the virus and nine dead.
Federal work-safety officials have closed at least 30 complaints about patient mixing in hospitals nationwide without issuing a citation. They include a claim that a Michigan hospital kept patients who tested negative for the virus in the COVID unit in May. An upstate New York hospital also had COVID patients in the same unit as those with no infection, according to a closed complaint to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Federal Health and Human Services officials have called on hospitals to tell them each day if they have a patient who came in without COVID-19 but had an apparent or confirmed case of the coronavirus 14 days later. Hospitals filed 48,000 reports from June 21 through Aug. 28, though the number reflects some double or additional counting of individual patients.
COVID patients have been mixed in with others for a variety of reasons. Some hospitals report having limited tests, so patients carrying the virus are identified only after they had already exposed others. In other cases, they had false-negative test results or their facility was dismissive of federal guidelines, which carry no force of law.
And while federal Medicare officials have inspected nearly every U.S. nursing home in recent months and states have occasionally levied fines and cut off new admissions for isolation lapses, hospitals have seen less scrutiny.
The Scene Inside Sutter
At Alta Bates in Oakland, part of the Sutter Health network, hospital staff made it clear in official complaints to Cal/OSHA that they wanted administrators to follow the state’s unique law on aerosol-transmitted diseases. From the start, some staffers wanted all the state-required protections for a virus that has been increasingly shown to be transmitted by tiny particles that float through the air.
The regulations call for patients with a virus like COVID-19 to be moved to a specialized unit within five hours of identification — or to a specialized facility. The rules say those patients should be in a room with a HEPA filter or with negative air pressure, meaning that air is circulated out a window or exhaust fan instead of drifting into the hallway.
Initially, in March, the hospital outfitted a 40-bed COVID unit, according to Hill. But when a surge of patients failed to materialize, that unit was pared to 12 beds.
Since then, a steady stream of virus patients have been admitted, he said, many testing positive only days after admission — and after they’d been in regular rooms in the facility.
From March 10 through July 30, Hill’s union and others filed eight complaints to Cal/OSHA, including allegations that the hospital failed to follow isolation rules for COVID patients, some on the cancer floor.
So far, regulators have done little. Gov. Gavin Newsom had ordered workplace safety officials to “focus on … supporting compliance” instead of enforcement except on the “most serious violations.”
State officials responded to complaints by reaching out by mail and phone to “ensure the proper virus prevention measures are in place,” according to Frank Polizzi, a spokesperson for Cal/OSHA.
A third investigation related to transport workers not wearing N95 respirators while moving COVID-positive or possible coronavirus patients at a Sutter facility near the hospital resulted in a $6,750 fine, Cal/OSHA records show.
The string of complaints also says the hospital did not give staff the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) under state law — an N95 respirator or something more protective — for caring for virus patients.
Instead, Hill said, staff on floors with COVID patients were provided lower-quality surgical masks, a concern reflected in complaints filed with Cal/OSHA.
Hill believes that Paiste-Ponder and another nurse on her floor caught the virus from COVID patients who did not remain in their rooms.
“It is sad, because it didn’t really need to happen,” Hill said.
Polizzi said investigations into the July 17 death and another staff hospitalization are ongoing.
A Sutter Health spokesperson said the hospital takes allegations, including Cal/OSHA complaints, seriously and its highest priority is keeping patients and staff safe.
The statement also said “cohorting,” or the practice of grouping virus patients together, is a tool that “must be considered in a greater context, including patient acuity, hospital census and other environmental factors.”
Concerns at Other Hospitals
CDC guidelines are not strict on the topic of keeping COVID patients sectioned off, noting that “facilities could consider designating entire units within the facility, with dedicated [staff],” to care for COVID patients.
That approach succeeded at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. A recent study reported “extensive” viral contamination around COVID patients there, but noted that with “standard” infection control techniques in place, staffers who cared for COVID patients did not get the virus.
The hospital set up an isolation unit with air pumped away from the halls, restricted access to the unit and trained staff to use well-developed protocols and N95 respirators — at a minimum. What worked in Nebraska, though, is far from standard elsewhere.
Cynthia Butler, a nurse and National Nurses United member at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, on Florida’s west coast, said she actually felt safer working in the COVID unit — where she knew what she was dealing with and had full PPE — than on a general medical floor.
She believes she caught the virus from a patient who had COVID-19 but was housed on a general floor in May. A similar situation occurred in July, when another patient had an unexpected case of COVID — and Butler said she got another positive test herself.
She said both patients did not meet the hospital’s criteria for testing admitted patients, and the lapses leave her on edge, concerns she relayed to an OSHA inspector who reached out to her about a complaint her union filed about the facility.
“Every time I go into work it’s like playing Russian roulette,” Butler said.
A spokesperson for HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, said it tests patients coming from long-term care, those going into surgery and those with virus symptoms. She said staffers have access to PPE and practice vigilant sanitation, universal masking and social distancing.
The latter is not an option for Butler, though, who said she cleans, feeds and starts IVs for patients and offers reassurance when they are isolated from family.
“I’m giving them the only comfort or kind word they can get,” said Butler, who has since gone on unpaid leave over safety concerns. “I’m in there doing that and I’m not being protected.”
Given research showing that up to 45% of COVID patients are asymptomatic, UCSF Medical Center is testing everyone who’s admitted, said Dr. Robert Harrison, a University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine professor who consults on occupational health at the hospital.
It’s done for the safety of staff and to reduce spread within the hospital, he said. Those who test positive are separated into a COVID-only unit.
And staff who spent more than 15 minutes within 6 feet of a not-yet-identified COVID patient in a less-protective surgical mask are typically sent home for two weeks, he said.
Outside of academic medicine, though, front-line staff have turned to union leaders to push for such protections.
In Southern California, leaders of the National Union of Healthcare Workers filed an official complaint with state hospital inspectors about the risks posed by intermingled COVID patients at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital in Orange County, part of for-profit Tenet Health. There, the complaint said, patients were not routinely tested for COVID-19 upon admission.
One nursing assistant spent two successive 12-hour shifts caring for a patient on a general medical floor who required monitoring. At the conclusion of the second shift, she was told the patient had just been found to be COVID-positive.
The worker had worn only a surgical mask — not an N95 respirator or any form of eye protection, according to the complaint to the California Department of Public Health. The nursing assistant was not offered a COVID test or quarantined before her next two shifts, the complaint said.
The public health department said it could not comment on a pending inspection.
Barbara Lewis, Southern California hospital division director with the union, said COVID patients were on the same floor as cancer patients and post-surgical patients who were walking the halls to speed their recovery.
She said managers took steps to separate the patients only after the union held a protest, spoke to local media and complained to state health officials.
Hospital spokesperson Jessica Chen said the hospital “quickly implemented” changes directed by state health authorities and does place some COVID patients on the same nursing unit as non-COVID patients during surges. She said they are placed in single rooms with closed doors. COVID tests are given by physician order, she added, and employees can access them at other places in the community.
It’s in contrast, Lewis said, to high-profile examples of the precautions that might be taken.
“Now we’re seeing what’s happening with baseball and basketball — they’re tested every day and treated with a high level of caution,” Lewis said. “Yet we have thousands and thousands of health care workers going to work in a very scary environment.”
Nursing Homes Face Penalties
More than 40% of the people who’ve died of COVID-19 lived in nursing homes or assisted living facilities, researchers have found.
Patient mixing has been a scattered concern at nursing homes, which Medicare officials discovered when they reviewed infection control practices at more than 15,000 facilities.
News reports have highlighted the problem at an Ohio nursing home and at a Maryland home where the state levied a $70,000 fine for failing to keep infected patients away from those who weren’t sick — yet.
Another facing penalties was Fair Havens Center, a Miami Springs, Florida, nursing home where inspectors discovered that 11 roommates of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were put in rooms with other residents — putting them at heightened risk.
Florida regulators cut off admissions to the home and Medicare authorities levied a $235,000 civil monetary penalty, records show.
The vice president of operations at the facility told inspectors that isolating exposed patients would mean isolating the entire facility: Everyone had been exposed to the 32 staff members who tested positive for the virus, the report says.
Fair Havens Center did not respond to a request for comment.
In Iowa, Medicare officials declared a state of “immediate jeopardy” at Pearl Valley Rehabilitation and Care Center in Muscatine. There, they discovered that staffers were in denial over an outbreak in their midst, with a nursing director overriding a community doctor’s orders to isolate or send residents to the emergency room. Instead, officials found, in late April, the assistant nursing director kept COVID patients in the facility, citing a general order by their medical director to avoid sending patients to the ER “if you can help it.”
Meanwhile, several patients were documented by facility staff to have fevers and falling oxygen levels, the Medicare inspection report shows. Within two weeks, the facility discovered it had an outbreak, with 61 residents infected and nine dead, according to the report.
Medicare officials are investigating Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home in New Jersey, state Sen. Joseph Vitale said during a recent legislative hearing. Resident council president Glenn Osborne testified during the hearing that the home’s residents were returned to the same shared rooms after hospitalizations.
Osborne, an honorably discharged Marine, said he saw more residents of the home die than fellow service members during his military service. The Menlo Park and Paramus veterans homes — where inspectors saw dementia patients with and without the virus commingling in a day room — both reported more than 180 COVID cases among residents, 90 among staff and at least 60 deaths.
A spokesperson for the homes said he could not comment due to pending litigation.
“These deaths should not have happened,” Osborne said. “Many of these deaths were absolutely avoidable, in my humble opinion.”
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--2020-09-10--Trump Names Anti-Abortion Senators to List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

President Trump on Wednesday released a list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy , which included three current far right U.S. senators .
Senators Tom Cotton ( R-Arkansas ) , Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) and Josh Hawley ( R-Missouri ) were included on Trump ’ s list of 20 potential nominees .
Although not without precedent , it is rare for sitting members of the Senate to be nominated to the high court .
The last member of Congress to receive the honor was Harold Burton , a Republican senator who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1945 .
It is unlikely that any of the three senators Trump named as potential Supreme Court nominees would get the same bipartisan support that Burton received , particularly because they are ardent opponents of reproductive rights .
Upon learning that he was included on Trump ’ s list , Hawley announced he was not interested in joining the Court .
He said in a statement , however , that he was looking forward “ to confirming constitutional conservatives ” as a senator .
The other two senators seemed open to the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was “ grateful for the president ’ s confidence in me and for his leadership in nominating principled constitutionalists to the federal bench.
” Cotton suggested he would rule with a far right interpretation of the Constitution .
“ The Supreme Court could use some more justices who understand the difference between applying the law and making the law , which the Court does when it invents a right to an abortion , infringes on religious freedom , and erodes the Second Amendment , ” Cotton said in a statement on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal account , Cotton reiterated his support for ending abortion rights .
“ It ’ s time for Roe v. Wade to go , ” Cotton wrote after being included on Trump ’ s list .
Individuals close to Trump seemed to acknowledge that the list was intended to help him win votes in the presidential race later this year , with one source calling it a “ political statement as much as a working document.
” “ You ’ re trying to create as many touch points as possible to people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and energize them to help him get re-elected , ” the source said to Axios .
Opposition to abortion also appeared to be a main selling point , as his campaign website , upon announcing the release of the list , used the issue as its first line of attack against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s potential nominees to the bench .
Reproductive rights and access to abortion are indeed contentious issues on the Supreme Court , with justices ruling in June against a restrictive abortion law in Louisiana .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal liberal justices on the basis of stare decisis ( a legal term that means ruling in alignment with similar decisions that have been made on the issue in the past ) rather than endorsing their arguments on the right to seek and receive an abortion .
“ We ’ re relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we ’ re concerned about tomorrow , ” Nancy Northup , president of the Center for Reproductive Rights , said at the @ @

President Trump on Wednesday released a list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy, which included three current far right U.S. senators.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) were included on Trump’s list of 20 potential nominees.
Although not without precedent, it is rare for sitting members of the Senate to be nominated to the high court. The last member of Congress to receive the honor was Harold Burton, a Republican senator who was nominated by Democratic President Harry Truman in 1945.
It is unlikely that any of the three senators Trump named as potential Supreme Court nominees would get the same bipartisan support that Burton received, particularly because they are ardent opponents of reproductive rights.
Upon learning that he was included on Trump’s list, Hawley announced he was not interested in joining the Court. He said in a statement, however, that he was looking forward “to confirming constitutional conservatives” as a senator.
The other two senators seemed open to the idea of becoming justices. Cruz stated that he was “grateful for the president’s confidence in me and for his leadership in nominating principled constitutionalists to the federal bench.” Cotton suggested he would rule with a far right interpretation of the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court could use some more justices who understand the difference between applying the law and making the law, which the Court does when it invents a right to an abortion, infringes on religious freedom, and erodes the Second Amendment,” Cotton said in a statement on Twitter.
In a separate tweet from his personal account, Cotton reiterated his support for ending abortion rights.
“It’s time for Roe v. Wade to go,” Cotton wrote after being included on Trump’s list.
Individuals close to Trump seemed to acknowledge that the list was intended to help him win votes in the presidential race later this year, with one source calling it a “political statement as much as a working document.”
“You’re trying to create as many touch points as possible to people who you want to re-elect him as president, and energize them to help him get re-elected,” the source said to Axios.
Opposition to abortion also appeared to be a main selling point, as his campaign website, upon announcing the release of the list, used the issue as its first line of attack against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s potential nominees to the bench.
Reproductive rights and access to abortion are indeed contentious issues on the Supreme Court, with justices ruling in June against a restrictive abortion law in Louisiana.
The decision was a close one, however, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal liberal justices on the basis of stare decisis (a legal term that means ruling in alignment with similar decisions that have been made on the issue in the past) rather than endorsing their arguments on the right to seek and receive an abortion.
“We’re relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we’re concerned about tomorrow,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said at the time.
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--2020-09-10--Clean Electricity Plan Would Free US Economy of Carbon Dependence in 15 Years

A detailed new engineering study reveals that , if the U.S. converted all its fossil-fueled technologies to clean electric power ( mainly solar and wind ) in the next 15 years , it would create 25 million new jobs over the next three to five years at its peak .
This total would eventually taper off to 5 million permanent new jobs ( over and above existing energy-sector jobs ) .
There ’ s no surprise here : Clean renewable energy , such as solar panels and electric vehicles , simply requires more manufacturing , installation and maintenance compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , well-paid jobs in every zip code — jobs that could not be outsourced to China or Mexico .
Most of the jobs would be in the trades — electrical , plumbing and construction , many of them in parts of the country neglected during the past 40 years .
All it would take is government leadership , organization and commitment .
The new engineering study , produced by Rewiring America , a not-for-profit organization dedicated to converting the U.S. economy to clean electric power , uses conservative assumptions .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercially available today ; no technical or price breakthroughs are presumed .
The study also assumes no behavioral changes by the public .
Further , the study assumes that no assets , like coal power plants , will be shut down before their original capital costs have been amortized ( no “ early retirement ” of fossil-fuel assets ) .
It also posits no special efficiency measures besides the inherent efficiency of clean electricity vs. fossil fuels , and no carbon capture and storage .
Lastly , it assumes a technology transition no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past — the authors call it “ the maximum feasible transition , ” based on the history of U.S. industrial mobilization organized by the government between 1940 and 1945 .
The new study was conducted by Saul Griffith and Sam Calisch ( both with advanced degrees from MIT ) and Alex Laskey , co-founder of Rewiring America .
The study — in the form of a 30-page white paper plus a short book available free in PDF — began in 2018 when Griffith ( a MacArthur “ genius ” awardee ) worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy , creating a detailed database of every publicly documented energy flow in the U.S. economy , from supply to demand .
The present study builds on that database using a “ machines up ” approach — examining every machine involved in every energy flow : lights , heat and motors throughout every sector of the economy , including transportation , buildings , industry and power generation .
The study assumes that , at the end of every fossil-fueled machine ’ s normal lifetime , it will be replaced by an equivalent electric-powered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by an induction cooktop , a gasoline car by an electric car , a natural-gas furnace by a heat pump , an incandescent light bulb by an LED .
In many buildings , a new breaker box would be required .
The difference in cost between the old machines and the new ones installed , added up across the economy , is the cost of the transition .
The number of jobs created by this expenditure is then calculated from reliable databases showing jobs created per million dollars invested .
Most households and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lump-sum investment in new technologies , so the government would need to invent a low-interest loan program ( “ climate loans ” ) to make the transition possible .
Griffith and his colleagues calculate the transition would cost the federal government $ 300 billion per year for 10 years , about 1.5 percent of current gross domestic product , less than half of what the U.S. currently spends on the military .
The benefits of the plan would be enormous .
First , of course , the world ’ s other major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japan and South Korea ) would see the economic benefits of replicating our transition , so the world could avoid the worst of the climate emergency .
In 2017 , climate disruption was costing the U.S. about $ 240 billion each year , according to a study led by Robert Watson , former chair of the International Panel on Climate Change .
With more fires , floods , record-breaking heat waves and destructive wind storms , the annual cost of climate change is likely higher today , and rising .
The Griffith plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is consistent with holding global average temperature rise to about 1.75 degrees Celsius ( 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit ) , if the world ’ s other major emitters adopt a similar plan within 10 years .
To hit the stricter 1.5°C/2.7°F target established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would require early retirement of some large fossil-fueled machines , such as coal power plants .
The federal government could buy them out and retire them , as part of its overall effort .
To go further and hit the 1.0°C/1.8°F target that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Antarctic ice would require removal of carbon dioxide directly from the air , an expensive and nascent technology .
The Griffith study says what ’ s most important is to ramp up rapidly now what we already know how to do .
The climate emergency is truly an emergency .
Second , the average U.S. household would save between $ 1,000 and $ 2,000 each year on its energy bill , the Griffith study shows , because electric power is simply more efficient than fossil-fueled sources , doing more work with less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. economy as a whole would use 50 to 60 percent less energy than today .
And then there are the jobs .
In addition to jobs in manufacturing and the trades , there would be jobs in education and training , plus finance jobs to manage the large volume of financial transactions required during the transition .
Third , as a technology leader and early adopter , the U.S. could export both its technology and its clean energy .
The clean energy would come 85 percent from wind turbines and solar-panel arrays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very useful ” but “ not necessary , ” the study says , though it still assumes 100 gigawatts ( GW ) of new nuclear power .
Nuclear currently produces about 20 percent of U.S. electricity ; the study says the cost of a new nuclear plant is double the cost per watt of solar or wind .
The study also includes some biofuels for long-distance aviation and certain industrial processes , plus 100 GW of new hydropower .
The U.S. currently has roughly 300 GW of carbon-free electricity-generating capacity .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to about 1,800 GW by 2035 .
Some of this would be generated on rooftops and used in the underlying buildings , requiring no access to the nation ’ s electrical transmission grid .
However , about 1,000 GW of new electricity would have to be carried by the grid .
This would more than triple the load on the grid , forcing a totally new grid-management philosophy to accommodate many new sources of supply and demand .
At present , access to the nation ’ s electric grid is strictly limited ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet , where everyone can attach a device and start sending and receiving easily .
Furthermore , the new grid would consist of many microgrids tied together , greatly increasing the reliability of energy-delivery to homes and businesses .
Renewable energy presents unique challenges , requiring many changes in building codes , laws , regulations and policies .
For example , large wind turbines can produce flickering light and very-low-frequency sounds , which some humans find profoundly disturbing , in some cases potentially triggering seizures or causing illness .
Therefore , large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not disturb anyone , and impacts on wildlife require careful consideration .
In addition , new transmission lines will be political poison in some locales ; therefore , thoughtful , sensible and detailed early planning will be required everywhere .
Only the government has the capacity to organize such a large undertaking .
Still , there ’ s no doubt that the U.S. has sufficient land to site the necessary new renewable energy equipment .
Griffith ’ s free book shows that 100 percent of U.S. energy demand could be met by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or 15 million acres of solar panels .
( Wind turbines require more land because they must be spaced farther apart than solar panels . )
The clean solution will involve some combination of solar and wind .
The U.S. currently has 2.8 million acres of residential rooftops , 1.3 million acres of commercial rooftops , 4.6 million acres of parking lots and 12.8 million acres of roads in addition to 339 million acres of cropland , 655 million acres of grassland and pasture , and another 39 million acres of idle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraction of available land , rooftops and road rights-of-way would be sufficient to power the whole economy with solar energy .
To provide another perspective , the Earth receives 85,000 terawatts of sunlight ; all human activity worldwide requires 19 terawatts , and the U.S. alone requires about 4 terawatts .
Sun power is plentiful and free .
In late August , Democrats in the U.S. Senate released their own far-reaching plan for converting the economy to clean sources of power .
They promise that , when they gain a majority , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per year to convert the economy to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 , and they say 40 percent of those dollars will be intended to benefit communities of color and low-income , deindustrialized and disadvantaged communities .
Similarly , Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed converting the U.S. electricity-generating system to renewable fuels by 2035 and the rest of the economy ( transport , buildings and industry ) by 2050 .
Both Democratic blueprints are huge steps forward , far better than the Republican plan , which is to double down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and hope for the best .
Still , both Democratic plans are somewhat less ambitious than the Griffith road map .
Griffith calls for a World War II scale of mobilization , to “ shoot for the moon , ” to reach the clean energy goal in 15 years , creating the needed sense of urgency and national commitment .
If the Democrats embraced Griffith ’ s more-aggressive plan , we could avert the worst of the climate emergency , revive the economy quickly with many millions of good new jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time .
Why would anyone want to settle for less ?

A detailed new engineering study reveals that, if the U.S. converted all its fossil-fueled technologies to clean electric power (mainly solar and wind) in the next 15 years, it would create 25 million new jobs over the next three to five years at its peak. This total would eventually taper off to 5 million permanent new jobs (over and above existing energy-sector jobs).
There’s no surprise here: Clean renewable energy, such as solar panels and electric vehicles, simply requires more manufacturing, installation and maintenance compared to fossil fuels. These would be good, well-paid jobs in every zip code — jobs that could not be outsourced to China or Mexico. Most of the jobs would be in the trades — electrical, plumbing and construction, many of them in parts of the country neglected during the past 40 years. All it would take is government leadership, organization and commitment.
The new engineering study, produced by Rewiring America, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to converting the U.S. economy to clean electric power, uses conservative assumptions. For example, it assumes using only technologies that are commercially available today; no technical or price breakthroughs are presumed. The study also assumes no behavioral changes by the public. Further, the study assumes that no assets, like coal power plants, will be shut down before their original capital costs have been amortized (no “early retirement” of fossil-fuel assets). It also posits no special efficiency measures besides the inherent efficiency of clean electricity vs. fossil fuels, and no carbon capture and storage. Lastly, it assumes a technology transition no faster than the U.S. has achieved in the past — the authors call it “the maximum feasible transition,” based on the history of U.S. industrial mobilization organized by the government between 1940 and 1945.
The new study was conducted by Saul Griffith and Sam Calisch (both with advanced degrees from MIT) and Alex Laskey, co-founder of Rewiring America.
The study — in the form of a 30-page white paper , plus a short book available free in PDF — began in 2018 when Griffith (a MacArthur “genius” awardee) worked under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy, creating a detailed database of every publicly documented energy flow in the U.S. economy, from supply to demand.
The present study builds on that database using a “machines up” approach — examining every machine involved in every energy flow: lights, heat and motors throughout every sector of the economy, including transportation, buildings, industry and power generation. The study assumes that, at the end of every fossil-fueled machine’s normal lifetime, it will be replaced by an equivalent electric-powered machine. A gas stove gets replaced by an induction cooktop, a gasoline car by an electric car, a natural-gas furnace by a heat pump, an incandescent light bulb by an LED. In many buildings, a new breaker box would be required. The difference in cost between the old machines and the new ones installed, added up across the economy, is the cost of the transition. The number of jobs created by this expenditure is then calculated from reliable databases showing jobs created per million dollars invested.
Most households and many businesses cannot afford to make a lump-sum investment in new technologies, so the government would need to invent a low-interest loan program (“climate loans”) to make the transition possible. Griffith and his colleagues calculate the transition would cost the federal government $300 billion per year for 10 years, about 1.5 percent of current gross domestic product, less than half of what the U.S. currently spends on the military.
The benefits of the plan would be enormous. First, of course, the world’s other major manufacturing nations (China, Germany, Japan and South Korea) would see the economic benefits of replicating our transition, so the world could avoid the worst of the climate emergency. In 2017, climate disruption was costing the U.S. about $240 billion each year, according to a study led by Robert Watson, former chair of the International Panel on Climate Change. With more fires, floods, record-breaking heat waves and destructive wind storms, the annual cost of climate change is likely higher today, and rising.
The transition would cost the federal government less than half of what the U.S. currently spends on the military.
The Griffith plan, with its conservative assumptions, says it is consistent with holding global average temperature rise to about 1.75 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit), if the world’s other major emitters adopt a similar plan within 10 years. To hit the stricter 1.5°C/2.7°F target established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would require early retirement of some large fossil-fueled machines, such as coal power plants. The federal government could buy them out and retire them, as part of its overall effort. To go further and hit the 1.0°C/1.8°F target that likely could prevent long-term melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice would require removal of carbon dioxide directly from the air, an expensive and nascent technology. The Griffith study says what’s most important is to ramp up rapidly now what we already know how to do. The climate emergency is truly an emergency.
Second, the average U.S. household would save between $1,000 and $2,000 each year on its energy bill, the Griffith study shows, because electric power is simply more efficient than fossil-fueled sources, doing more work with less energy. After the transition, the U.S. economy as a whole would use 50 to 60 percent less energy than today. And then there are the jobs. In addition to jobs in manufacturing and the trades, there would be jobs in education and training, plus finance jobs to manage the large volume of financial transactions required during the transition. Third, as a technology leader and early adopter, the U.S. could export both its technology and its clean energy.
The clean energy would come 85 percent from wind turbines and solar-panel arrays. Some nuclear power would be “very useful” but “not necessary,” the study says, though it still assumes 100 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear power. Nuclear currently produces about 20 percent of U.S. electricity; the study says the cost of a new nuclear plant is double the cost per watt of solar or wind. The study also includes some biofuels for long-distance aviation and certain industrial processes, plus 100 GW of new hydropower.
The U.S. currently has roughly 300 GW of carbon-free electricity-generating capacity. In the Griffith plan, this would grow sixfold to about 1,800 GW by 2035. Some of this would be generated on rooftops and used in the underlying buildings, requiring no access to the nation’s electrical transmission grid.
However, about 1,000 GW of new electricity would have to be carried by the grid. This would more than triple the load on the grid, forcing a totally new grid-management philosophy to accommodate many new sources of supply and demand. At present, access to the nation’s electric grid is strictly limited; the new grid could be modeled on the internet, where everyone can attach a device and start sending and receiving easily. Furthermore, the new grid would consist of many microgrids tied together, greatly increasing the reliability of energy-delivery to homes and businesses.
Renewable energy presents unique challenges, requiring many changes in building codes, laws, regulations and policies. For example, large wind turbines can produce flickering light and very-low-frequency sounds, which some humans find profoundly disturbing, in some cases potentially triggering seizures or causing illness. Therefore, large turbines could only be placed where they would not disturb anyone, and impacts on wildlife require careful consideration. In addition, new transmission lines will be political poison in some locales; therefore, thoughtful, sensible and detailed early planning will be required everywhere. Only the government has the capacity to organize such a large undertaking.
Still, there’s no doubt that the U.S. has sufficient land to site the necessary new renewable energy equipment. Griffith’s free book shows that 100 percent of U.S. energy demand could be met by either 100 million acres of wind turbines, or 15 million acres of solar panels. (Wind turbines require more land because they must be spaced farther apart than solar panels.) The clean solution will involve some combination of solar and wind. The U.S. currently has 2.8 million acres of residential rooftops, 1.3 million acres of commercial rooftops, 4.6 million acres of parking lots and 12.8 million acres of roads in addition to 339 million acres of cropland, 655 million acres of grassland and pasture, and another 39 million acres of idle cropland. In sum, a small fraction of available land, rooftops and road rights-of-way would be sufficient to power the whole economy with solar energy.
To provide another perspective, the Earth receives 85,000 terawatts of sunlight; all human activity worldwide requires 19 terawatts, and the U.S. alone requires about 4 terawatts. Sun power is plentiful and free.
In late August, Democrats in the U.S. Senate released their own far-reaching plan for converting the economy to clean sources of power. They promise that, when they gain a majority, they will immediately begin spending $400 billion per year to convert the economy to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, and they say 40 percent of those dollars will be intended to benefit communities of color and low-income, deindustrialized and disadvantaged communities.
Similarly, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed converting the U.S. electricity-generating system to renewable fuels by 2035 and the rest of the economy (transport, buildings and industry) by 2050.
Both Democratic blueprints are huge steps forward, far better than the Republican plan, which is to double down on fossil fuels, fry the planet, and hope for the best. Still, both Democratic plans are somewhat less ambitious than the Griffith road map. Griffith calls for a World War II scale of mobilization, to “shoot for the moon,” to reach the clean energy goal in 15 years, creating the needed sense of urgency and national commitment. If the Democrats embraced Griffith’s more-aggressive plan, we could avert the worst of the climate emergency, revive the economy quickly with many millions of good new jobs, and save every family money, all at the same time. Why would anyone want to settle for less?
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.