truthout--2020-10-19--Trump Administration Is Paying Big Pharma Billions in Rush for Vaccine

Desperate to distract the national discourse from his criminal mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic , Donald Trump is promising that a vaccine will be available before Election Day .
His vaccine campaign is named “ Operation Warp Speed ” and there is a real danger that its speed will warp the results .
Ironically , the Trump administration is comparing this effort to the Manhattan Project , the highly secret government program to develop the first atomic bomb .
“ This isn ’ t a secret government weapon we ’ re trying to keep from an enemy , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Drugs .
“ The enemy is the virus .
This is actually a rescue mission to save Americans and humanity from the virus.
” Vaccines generally take 10 years to develop , test and distribute .
The shortest time it has taken to develop a vaccine is four years .
Yet four pharmaceutical companies are in late stages of clinical trials .
Pfizer , apparently the front-runner in the vaccine race , says it won ’ t have results before mid-November .
Moderna , AstraZeneca , and Johnson & Johnson say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the year .
“ Trying to produce a vaccine at ‘ Warp Speed ’ is a terrible gamble with public health , ” Clifford Conner , a science historian and author of the new book , The Tragedy of American Science : From Truman to Trump , said in an interview with Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action USA .
“ If none of the inadequately tested trial vaccines kill anybody — and if one of them should actually prove therapeutically worthwhile — it will be a matter of dumb luck , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a deadly crisis.
” In July , AstraZeneca halted its clinical trials because a participant became seriously ill .
Although AstraZeneca refused to identify the malady , citing privacy concerns , the patient ’ s symptoms were consistent with transverse myelitis , or inflammation of the spinal cord .
Several researchers decried AstraZeneca ’ s lack of transparency .
Last week , Johnson & Johnson announced it had paused its clinical trial due to an unexplained illness in one of its volunteers .
The company refused to provide details , claiming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy .
Robert R. Redfield , director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , told a Senate panel on September 16 that a vaccine wouldn ’ t be readily available until mid-2021 .
A few hours later , Trump declared , without evidence , that Redfield “ made a mistake ” and a vaccine would be widely available in weeks .
Shortly before Trump contradicted Redfield , four senior physicians directing the national coronavirus response team endorsed the Food and Drug Administration ’ s ( FDA ) new stricter safety rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside experts before the FDA will pronounce a vaccine safe and effective .
The new FDA emergency rules also require that participants in clinical trials be followed for two months after administration of the immunizations before final authorization , in order to identify possible side effects .
But desperate to win an electoral advantage in the face of Trump ’ s falling poll numbers , the administration stalled its approval of the FDA ’ s new policies for two weeks .
Trump accused the FDA of preventing authorization of a vaccine before Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit job.
” The day after The New York Times reported that White House officials were blocking the FDA ’ s new guidelines , the administration did an about-face and approved them .
“ I have tremendous trust in these massive companies that are so brilliantly organized in terms of what they ’ ve been doing with the tests , ” Trump said at a press briefing .
“ I don ’ t know that a government as big as we are could do tests like this.
” In the race to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operation Warp Speed is “ paying out billions of dollars to Big Pharma corporations in advance of any results whatsoever , ” Conner told Truthout .
They are not complying with regulatory oversight and traditional federal contracting mechanisms that create transparency , he noted .
“ Before any of the companies had done any research or developed any products , they were already reaping windfall profits from their association with Operation Warp Speed.
” What that demonstrates , Conner adds , is that , “ Warp Speed is not so much a scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing research laboratories as it is a speculative frenzy among competing hedge funds.
” Three of the pharmaceutical companies that have contracted with Warp Speed to develop a vaccine have never successfully brought any vaccine to market , Conner said .
Novavax has a Warp Speed contract for $ 1.6 billion , Moderna has a $ 1.5 billion Warp Speed contract , and Vaxart ’ s stock prices have soared , its owners realizing huge profits .
Pfizer also has a Warp Speed contract worth $ 1.95 billion .
The Trump administration is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorization of a vaccine as a “ pre-licensure.
” But , concerned it would appear to be politicizing scientific determinations , the FDA is pushing back .
An FDA spokesperson cited “ important substantive differences ” between the emergency use authorization and the more rigorous process to license a vaccine .
“ There is no such thing as ‘ pre-licensure ’ or ‘ pre-approval ’ under the laws FDA administers , ” the spokesperson said .
A data and safety monitoring board has been established to review information about the safety and effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authority to fast-track or halt a clinical trial .
This small panel of 10 to 15 outside scientists and statistical experts works in secret , ostensibly to shield them from company pressure .
The secrecy , however , may also lead to undue influence by drug companies .
“ We want to know they ’ re truly independent , ” Eric Topol , a clinical trial expert at San Diego ’ s Scripps Research , said .
“ The lack of transparency is exasperating.
” The safety board is overseeing trials by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Pfizer , which is funding its clinical trials , has its own five-member safety panel .
Topol criticized Moderna and Pfizer for including in their data people who had fairly mild cases of COVID-19 .
Topol said evidence of the effectiveness of a vaccine would be more solid if only moderate and severe cases were included .
In addition , Topol faulted Pfizer and Moderna for their willingness to halt their clinical trials early , which could prove detrimental later when the vaccine is administered to millions of people .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No shortcuts .
Nobody will regret it , ” Topol cautioned .
“ I ’ ve been doing clinical trials for decades .
I don ’ t know if there ’ s ever been a more important one than this one .
I ’ d like to see it done right , and not stopped early.
” Congress members , advocacy organizations and a former administration official are calling for Operation Warp Speed to release its vaccine contracts with the pharmaceutical companies .
“ The administration really just seems to be playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lloyd Doggett ( D-Texas ) told NPR .
The Trump administration has ignored requests by the House of Representatives for information on COVID-19 spending .
“ [ R ] ight now , the entire process is riddled with political interference and a lack of transparency , ” Sen. Patty Murray , ( D-Washington ) , ranking member of the Senate Health , Education , Labor and Pensions Committee , wrote in a statement to NPR .
“ These contracts need to be made public so Congress and the American people are not left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much at stake.
” Rick Bright , who was fired as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , filed a whistleblower complaint , charging that some federal COVID-19 contracts were awarded based on “ political connections and cronyism ” instead of scientific evidence .
Bright said there ’ s no reason to hide the contracts , which causes him to suspect “ that there ’ s something interesting in there they don ’ t want discovered.
” Trump ’ s stubborn insistence on having a vaccine by Election Day does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Pharma ’ s predictions .
The shortcuts they threaten to take for political gain and mega-profits endanger the public safety .
That should frighten us all .

We must demand transparency to ensure the vaccine is as safe as possible.
Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
Desperate to distract the national discourse from his criminal mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic, Donald Trump is promising that a vaccine will be available before Election Day. His vaccine campaign is named “Operation Warp Speed” and there is a real danger that its speed will warp the results. Ironically, the Trump administration is comparing this effort to the Manhattan Project, the highly secret government program to develop the first atomic bomb. “This isn’t a secret government weapon we’re trying to keep from an enemy,” said David Mitchell, founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs. “The enemy is the virus. This is actually a rescue mission to save Americans and humanity from the virus.”
Vaccines generally take 10 years to develop, test and distribute. The shortest time it has taken to develop a vaccine is four years. Yet four pharmaceutical companies are in late stages of clinical trials. Pfizer, apparently the front-runner in the vaccine race, says it won’t have results before mid-November. Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson say they hope to have results by the end of the year.
“Trying to produce a vaccine at ‘Warp Speed’ is a terrible gamble with public health,” Clifford Conner, a science historian and author of the new book, The Tragedy of American Science: From Truman to Trump, said in an interview with Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action USA. “If none of the inadequately tested trial vaccines kill anybody — and if one of them should actually prove therapeutically worthwhile — it will be a matter of dumb luck, and dumb luck is never a good plan in a deadly crisis.”
In July, AstraZeneca halted its clinical trials because a participant became seriously ill. Although AstraZeneca refused to identify the malady, citing privacy concerns, the patient’s symptoms were consistent with transverse myelitis, or inflammation of the spinal cord. Several researchers decried AstraZeneca’s lack of transparency.
Last week, Johnson & Johnson announced it had paused its clinical trial due to an unexplained illness in one of its volunteers. The company refused to provide details, claiming the need to protect the patient’s privacy.
Robert R. Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a Senate panel on September 16 that a vaccine wouldn’t be readily available until mid-2021. A few hours later, Trump declared, without evidence, that Redfield “made a mistake” and a vaccine would be widely available in weeks.
His vaccine campaign is named “Operation Warp Speed” and there is a real danger that its speed will warp the results.
Shortly before Trump contradicted Redfield, four senior physicians directing the national coronavirus response team endorsed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new stricter safety rules. Those requirements mandate the approval of outside experts before the FDA will pronounce a vaccine safe and effective.
The new FDA emergency rules also require that participants in clinical trials be followed for two months after administration of the immunizations before final authorization, in order to identify possible side effects.
But desperate to win an electoral advantage in the face of Trump’s falling poll numbers, the administration stalled its approval of the FDA’s new policies for two weeks. Trump accused the FDA of preventing authorization of a vaccine before Election Day, calling it a “political hit job.” The day after The New York Times reported that White House officials were blocking the FDA’s new guidelines, the administration did an about-face and approved them.
“I have tremendous trust in these massive companies that are so brilliantly organized in terms of what they’ve been doing with the tests,” Trump said at a press briefing. “I don’t know that a government as big as we are could do tests like this.”
In the race to develop a vaccine as quickly as possible, Operation Warp Speed is “paying out billions of dollars to Big Pharma corporations in advance of any results whatsoever,” Conner told Truthout. They are not complying with regulatory oversight and traditional federal contracting mechanisms that create transparency, he noted. “Before any of the companies had done any research or developed any products, they were already reaping windfall profits from their association with Operation Warp Speed.” What that demonstrates, Conner adds, is that, “Warp Speed is not so much a scientific ‘race for a vaccine’ among competing research laboratories as it is a speculative frenzy among competing hedge funds.”
Three of the pharmaceutical companies that have contracted with Warp Speed to develop a vaccine have never successfully brought any vaccine to market, Conner said. Novavax has a Warp Speed contract for $1.6 billion, Moderna has a $1.5 billion Warp Speed contract, and Vaxart’s stock prices have soared, its owners realizing huge profits. Pfizer also has a Warp Speed contract worth $1.95 billion.
“Warp Speed is not so much a scientific ‘race for a vaccine’ among competing research laboratories as it is a speculative frenzy among competing hedge funds.”
The Trump administration is pressuring the FDA to rebrand its emergency authorization of a vaccine as a “pre-licensure.” But, concerned it would appear to be politicizing scientific determinations, the FDA is pushing back. An FDA spokesperson cited “important substantive differences” between the emergency use authorization and the more rigorous process to license a vaccine. “There is no such thing as ‘pre-licensure’ or ‘pre-approval’ under the laws FDA administers,” the spokesperson said.
A data and safety monitoring board has been established to review information about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The board has the authority to fast-track or halt a clinical trial. This small panel of 10 to 15 outside scientists and statistical experts works in secret, ostensibly to shield them from company pressure. The secrecy, however, may also lead to undue influence by drug companies. “We want to know they’re truly independent,” Eric Topol, a clinical trial expert at San Diego’s Scripps Research, said. “The lack of transparency is exasperating.” The safety board is overseeing trials by Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. But Pfizer, which is funding its clinical trials, has its own five-member safety panel.
Topol criticized Moderna and Pfizer for including in their data people who had fairly mild cases of COVID-19. Topol said evidence of the effectiveness of a vaccine would be more solid if only moderate and severe cases were included. In addition, Topol faulted Pfizer and Moderna for their willingness to halt their clinical trials early, which could prove detrimental later when the vaccine is administered to millions of people.
“Take the time, the extra weeks. No shortcuts. Nobody will regret it,” Topol cautioned. “I’ve been doing clinical trials for decades. I don’t know if there’s ever been a more important one than this one. I’d like to see it done right, and not stopped early.”
Trump’s stubborn insistence on having a vaccine by Election Day does not comport with reality.
Congress members, advocacy organizations and a former administration official are calling for Operation Warp Speed to release its vaccine contracts with the pharmaceutical companies. “The administration really just seems to be playing a game of hide-and-seek,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) told NPR.
The Trump administration has ignored requests by the House of Representatives for information on COVID-19 spending. “[R]ight now, the entire process is riddled with political interference and a lack of transparency,” Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Washington), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote in a statement to NPR. “These contracts need to be made public so Congress and the American people are not left in the dark — there is too much at stake.”
Rick Bright, who was fired as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, filed a whistleblower complaint, charging that some federal COVID-19 contracts were awarded based on “political connections and cronyism” instead of scientific evidence. Bright said there’s no reason to hide the contracts, which causes him to suspect “that there’s something interesting in there they don’t want discovered.”
Trump’s stubborn insistence on having a vaccine by Election Day does not comport with reality. Neither do Big Pharma’s predictions. The shortcuts they threaten to take for political gain and mega-profits endanger the public safety. That should frighten us all.
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--2020-10-20--Philadelphia Agrees to Provide Community Housing Amid Unhoused Activist Push

After months of organizing that included the establishment of two protest encampments , Philadelphia ’ s unhoused people successfully pushed the city to agree to provide housing on a community land trust on October 14 .
Camp James Talib-Dean , or Camp JTD , closed last week , and organizers and encampment participants will eventually control a community land trust through a non-profit organization in coordination with the city .
They will manage 50 properties provided by the city and PHA , and the city will build two tiny-house villages , which won ’ t be ready until mid-2021 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that it ’ s the start of really targeting what we see as [ the Philadelphia Housing Authority ( PHA ) ] allowing private developers to come in and target neighborhoods , ” Sterling Johnson , an organizer with the Black and Brown Workers Collective , told Shadowproof .
Johnson ’ s cousin was James Talib-Dean , for whom the encampment was named , after the 34-year-old organizer died by overdose in June following the encampment ’ s launch .
“ This is a real intervention that focuses on liberation and racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize the deal does not go far enough to meet the needs of all people who are unhoused in Philadelphia , and they vow to continue the fight on the heels of these tremendous victories .
Since June of 2020 , two homeless encampments with radical and anti-racist politics have sustained into the fall in Philadelphia .
During the summer ’ s uprisings over the police killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and countless others , organizers nationwide sought to tie the fight for racial justice to the fight for housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to End Homelessness , Black Americans make up 40 percent of the homeless population , despite only making up 13 percent of the general population .
Philadelphia Housing Action — an organizing coalition including the Black and Brown Workers Collective , Occupy PHA , Philly for REAL Justice , and others — announced a tentative commitment from the city on September 26 , consisting of housing for 50 mothers and children from the encampments in 15 city-owned units , which would be placed in a community land trust .
Camp JTD was home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisting multiple eviction attempts from the city and the constant threat of police .
Wealthy local residents complained that “ they no longer feel safe going to Whole Foods ” to the media .
A sister encampment , Camp Teddy , launched shortly after Camp JTD outside the headquarters of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in North Philadelphia , on a plot of heavily contested land set to host the neighborhood ’ s only grocery store , in a food desert .
These encampments were run and maintained by unhoused people , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen the people of this camp be able to handle three different final notices , ” said Johnson .
This effort is deeply personal to Johnson and their community and they hope to provide a space for those often left out of public housing provisions .
“ The only reason that we ’ re here is because we know that people have been hurt , and we ’ re not going to let it go anymore .
For all the poor people , all the drug users , all the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not going to let that happen anymore , ” they said .
Johnson ’ s conviction , and the perseverance of the encampment , is already paying off , despite the significant opposition .
On October 6 , Camp Teddy secured a win of their own after weeks of expecting police violence .
“ [ The city ] told the media the eviction is ongoing , and they won ’ t tell the public when they ’ re coming , so we were kind of in this place for over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just waiting for the cops to come and crack our heads open , and clear the camps out , ” said Jennifer Bennetch , founder of Occupy PHA , the day after the agreement .
On the evening of October 5 , in a rush to preserve the $ 52 million business deal for the grocery store development ( which also included mixed-income housing ) , the city and PHA stated that they were willing to work with Camp Teddy .
Organizers secured nine vacant units in Philadelphia ’ s Strawberry Mansion neighborhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed to providing job training and resources to restore the properties .
Throughout the spring , and during the encampments , Occupy PHA helped move unhoused people into 10 unoccupied PHA-owned properties and restored them to code .
“ They did a masterful job , and we have to give them credit , ” PHA president and CEO Kelvin Jeremiah told the Philadelphia Inquirer .
“ Remember , our ultimate goal was no different than theirs : promoting the urgency of getting affordable housing.
” Bennetch observed that the agreement allows for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as opposed to gatekeepers for existing housing options .
Nonetheless , the residents of Camp Teddy are excited for the housing and possible job training .
These victories come during a year of coordinated rent strikes and other efforts to combat mass evictions , as 60 million people filed for unemployment within the last six months .
Protest encampments in Seattle and Minneapolis have produced mixed results ; but there is hope the victories in Philadelphia may be instructive .
Philadelphia is a city struggling under the weight of the national housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficulties brought by neoliberal policies .
It is the poorest big city in the country , which , due to the city ’ s intense gentrification , may only worsen .
The waiting list for public housing in Philadelphia has been closed for seven years , with 40,000 people on the list .
Johnson pointed out that none of the housing given to encampment members was ever going to be considered for those on the waitlist .
“ [ This deal ] is not enough housing to think of a permanent solution for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , and we think that there ’ s enough housing in the city , and vacant housing , to reach those goals , ” said Johnson .
“ We ’ re going to have to keep fighting for that.
” Organizers are hopeful that their recent successes are indicative of rising people power nationwide on issues of housing justice .
“ I really want to connect with groups in other states and other cities where some of the same things are going on , and I want to get a coalition together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop housing authorities from selling land to developers , ” said Bennetch , when looking to the future .
“ [ We could ] try to get a federal policy where housing authorities will have to offer land that they ’ re going to get rid of to community groups to stay low income housing , stay looking the way it looks , and preserve the culture and affordability of the neighborhood .
”

These victories come during a year of coordinated rent strikes and other efforts to combat mass evictions.
After months of organizing that included the establishment of two protest encampments, Philadelphia’s unhoused people successfully pushed the city to agree to provide housing on a community land trust on October 14.
Camp James Talib-Dean, or Camp JTD, closed last week, and organizers and encampment participants will eventually control a community land trust through a non-profit organization in coordination with the city. They will manage 50 properties provided by the city and PHA, and the city will build two tiny-house villages, which won’t be ready until mid-2021, according to the Inquirer.
“We know that it’s the start of really targeting what we see as [the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA)] allowing private developers to come in and target neighborhoods,” Sterling Johnson, an organizer with the Black and Brown Workers Collective, told Shadowproof.
Johnson’s cousin was James Talib-Dean, for whom the encampment was named, after the 34-year-old organizer died by overdose in June following the encampment’s launch.
“This is a real intervention that focuses on liberation and racial justice,” Johnson said.
Organizers recognize the deal does not go far enough to meet the needs of all people who are unhoused in Philadelphia, and they vow to continue the fight on the heels of these tremendous victories.
Since June of 2020, two homeless encampments with radical and anti-racist politics have sustained into the fall in Philadelphia. During the summer’s uprisings over the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others, organizers nationwide sought to tie the fight for racial justice to the fight for housing justice.
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Black Americans make up 40 percent of the homeless population, despite only making up 13 percent of the general population.
Philadelphia Housing Action — an organizing coalition including the Black and Brown Workers Collective, Occupy PHA, Philly for REAL Justice, and others — announced a tentative commitment from the city on September 26, consisting of housing for 50 mothers and children from the encampments in 15 city-owned units, which would be placed in a community land trust.
Camp JTD was home to over a hundred people, successfully resisting multiple eviction attempts from the city and the constant threat of police. Wealthy local residents complained that “they no longer feel safe going to Whole Foods” to the media.
A sister encampment, Camp Teddy, launched shortly after Camp JTD outside the headquarters of the Philadelphia Housing Authority in North Philadelphia, on a plot of heavily contested land set to host the neighborhood’s only grocery store, in a food desert. These encampments were run and maintained by unhoused people, with the support of housed allies.
“We’ve seen the people of this camp be able to handle three different final notices,” said Johnson.
This effort is deeply personal to Johnson and their community and they hope to provide a space for those often left out of public housing provisions.
“The only reason that we’re here is because we know that people have been hurt, and we’re not going to let it go anymore. For all the poor people, all the drug users, all the black sex workers, all the others: we’re not going to let that happen anymore,” they said.
Johnson’s conviction, and the perseverance of the encampment, is already paying off, despite the significant opposition.
On October 6, Camp Teddy secured a win of their own after weeks of expecting police violence.
“[The city] told the media the eviction is ongoing, and they won’t tell the public when they’re coming, so we were kind of in this place for over a week where every day we were just waiting for the cops to come and crack our heads open, and clear the camps out,” said Jennifer Bennetch, founder of Occupy PHA, the day after the agreement.
On the evening of October 5, in a rush to preserve the $52 million business deal for the grocery store development (which also included mixed-income housing), the city and PHA stated that they were willing to work with Camp Teddy.
Organizers secured nine vacant units in Philadelphia’s Strawberry Mansion neighborhood, currently in unlivable conditions; PHA committed to providing job training and resources to restore the properties.
Throughout the spring, and during the encampments, Occupy PHA helped move unhoused people into 10 unoccupied PHA-owned properties and restored them to code.
“They did a masterful job, and we have to give them credit,” PHA president and CEO Kelvin Jeremiah told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Remember, our ultimate goal was no different than theirs: promoting the urgency of getting affordable housing.”
Bennetch observed that the agreement allows for the Housing Authority to position themselves as heroes, as opposed to gatekeepers for existing housing options. Nonetheless, the residents of Camp Teddy are excited for the housing and possible job training.
These victories come during a year of coordinated rent strikes and other efforts to combat mass evictions, as 60 million people filed for unemployment within the last six months.
Protest encampments in Seattle and Minneapolis have produced mixed results; but there is hope the victories in Philadelphia may be instructive.
Philadelphia is a city struggling under the weight of the national housing crisis on top of all the other difficulties brought by neoliberal policies. It is the poorest big city in the country, which, due to the city’s intense gentrification, may only worsen.
The waiting list for public housing in Philadelphia has been closed for seven years, with 40,000 people on the list. Johnson pointed out that none of the housing given to encampment members was ever going to be considered for those on the waitlist.
“[This deal] is not enough housing to think of a permanent solution for everybody. We would like to get there, and we think that there’s enough housing in the city, and vacant housing, to reach those goals,” said Johnson. “We’re going to have to keep fighting for that.”
Organizers are hopeful that their recent successes are indicative of rising people power nationwide on issues of housing justice.
“I really want to connect with groups in other states and other cities where some of the same things are going on, and I want to get a coalition together and try to do a national push to stop housing authorities from selling land to developers,” said Bennetch, when looking to the future.
“[We could] try to get a federal policy where housing authorities will have to offer land that they’re going to get rid of to community groups to stay low income housing, stay looking the way it looks, and preserve the culture and affordability of the neighborhood.”
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--2020-10-19--ExxonMobil Claims Shift on Climate But Continues to Fund Climate Science Deniers

After decades of public denial , ExxonMobil now acknowledges that “ the risk of climate change is real ” and says it is “ committed to being part of the solution , ” at least according to the company ’ s website and statements .
To that end , the largest investor-owned oil company in the world claims it supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement .
But the company ’ s recently released grantmaking report shows that it has not ended its two-decade-long campaign to stymie government efforts to address climate change .
By ExxonMobil ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 690,000 to eight climate science denier groups in 2019 , a 10 percent drop from 2018 .
In addition , it continued to fund federal lawmakers who oppose a carbon tax , despite its supposed longtime support for the idea .
Forty percent of the nearly $ 1 million it has contributed so far to congressional incumbent campaigns during the 2019-20 election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers still in office .
Sixty percent of ExxonMobil ’ s 2019 donations to climate obstructionist groups for “ public information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Chamber of Commerce , while another 30 percent was split between the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute , which have been receiving annual grants from the company since it began financing climate disinformation 22 years ago .
All told , ExxonMobil has spent more than $ 37 million on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019 , more than any individual funder besides Charles Koch and his brother , the late David Koch , the billionaire owners of the coal , oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries .
Koch-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on many of the same groups over roughly the same time period .
Did the top three recipients of ExxonMobil grants for climate science denier groups in 2019 toe the company ’ s publicly stated line on climate ?
The short answer is no .
If actions speak louder than words , the donations call into question ExxonMobil ’ s commitment to seriously address the climate crisis and deserve a closer look .
The U.S. Chamber Still Opposes Carbon Pollution Standards The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a major player in blocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1990s , when the business lobby and Exxon were members of the Global Climate Coalition , a consortium of corporations and trade associations opposed to government policies that would cut carbon emissions .
But in 2009 — the same year ExxonMobil first announced its support for a carbon tax in a cynical attempt to derail cap-and-trade climate legislation — the Chamber ’ s united front began to crack .
A handful of Fortune 500 companies — including Apple , Exelon Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric — quit the Chamber over its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other high-profile companies — Nike and Johnson & Johnson — retained their membership but rebuked the business lobby for the same reason .
Since then , at least a dozen Chamber members , including Hewlett-Packard , General Mills , Mars , Nestlé and Unilever , have headed for the exits .
By contrast , ExxonMobil not only retained its Chamber membership , but it also pledged $ 5 million in annual installments to help pay for the Chamber ’ s $ 250-million renovation of its Washington , D.C. , headquarters .
In 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the building rehabilitation and another $ 15,000 to the Chamber ’ s Corporate Citizenship Center , bringing its total contributions since 2014 to $ 4.8 million .
What does ExxonMobil get for its money ?
Among other things , the business lobby goes to bat for it in court by filing lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and in the court of public opinion by funding misleading climate-related reports .
A prime example is the Chamber ’ s widely debunked 2017 report that grossly exaggerated the cost to the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement .
President Donald Trump cited that report as his primary rationale for ignoring the U.S. commitment to the accord , and he has vowed to officially pull the United States out in early November .
However , in 2019 , the Chamber seemed to take a 180-degree turn , declaring on its website : “ Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes .
Inaction is simply not an option.
” Although one could quibble with the assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change when in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause , it was a far cry from when the organization maintained in comments submitted to the EPA in 2009 that “ a warming of even 3 [ degrees Celsius ] in the next 100 years would , on balance , be beneficial to humans.
” But the Chamber ’ s turnabout was not complete .
Although it now concedes the reality of human-caused climate change , it is still pushing private-sector innovation as the solution to the climate crisis rather than much-needed government regulation , which historically has driven technological advances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding for research and development of advanced nuclear reactors , utility-scale batteries , and carbon capture and storage technology , it backed the Trump administration ’ s rollbacks of the Obama administration ’ s 2015 Clean Power Plan , which would have reduced power plant carbon emissions and its 2015 “ Waters of the United States ” rule , which would have protected small streams , wetlands and groundwater from toxic chemicals .
More recently , the Chamber supported the Trump administration ’ s weakening of the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval process and rescinding a requirement that federal agencies consider a proposed project ’ s impact on the climate .
Unlike ExxonMobil ’ s professed support for a carbon tax , the Chamber has no official position , but if carbon tax legislation ever made it to the Senate or House floor , it presumably would oppose it given its dim view of government regulation .
Likewise , the Chamber ’ s avowed support for U.S. compliance with the Paris climate accord includes a major caveat .
Dan Byers , vice president for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy Institute , told Politico in August 2019 that it is “ absolutely important for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate agreement ” but added that the “ Obama administration ’ s pledge was unrealistic , [ and ] was going to have a negative impact on our economy .
And so we ’ d like to see that revisited.
” In other words , the Chamber would like the United States to remain a party to the agreement so that it could lobby to weaken the U.S. commitment to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) $ 110,000 , bringing its total since 1998 to $ 4.76 million — more than any other of its climate science denier grantees .
The 82-year-old , free market think tank also receives generous funding from other climate disinformation network supporters , including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation .
What does ExxonMobil get for its money from AEI ?
A cheerleader for fossil fuels , economist Benjamin Zycher , who — contrary to the company ’ s professed climate positions — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ ineffective ” and has called the Paris agreement an “ absurdity.
” In March , Zycher published a report arguing that “ any plausible policy ” to curb carbon emissions “ would yield trivial effects while imposing large costs.
” Instead , he recommended the federal government adopt a policy of “ watchful waiting , adaptation over time , and ongoing investment in resilience against the future effects of climactic [ sic ] changes.
” How could Zycher recommend “ watchful waiting ” given the large costs climate change is already imposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his report before this summer , when heat waves and wildfires burned up the West Coast and hurricanes slammed the Southeast .
But last summer was not that different , and climate change-related disasters have been racking up considerable damage over the last few years .
From 2017 through 2019 , there were 44 unique extreme weather and climate-linked events across the country causing damages of $ 1 billion or more , collectively costing more than $ 460 billion .
Nevertheless , Zycher insists fossil fuels are indispensable .
“ Opposition to fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , training , health care , and the like — that add to human capital and so increase incomes and the demand for conventional energy , ” he wrote .
“ Therefore , opposition to fossil fuels is fundamentally antihuman.
” Zycher made the same argument in a May 7 column in the Financial Times , ranting that environmentalists who aim to deprive the world of fossil fuels “ hate humanity , and the planet too.
” Putting aside Zycher ’ s ad hominem attack on the “ environmental left , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy with how it is generated .
At several junctures in history , humans switched from wood to coal to natural gas to warm their homes .
Likewise , they switched from whale oil to kerosene to incandescents to LEDs to illuminate their homes .
Opposition to coal and kerosene in the past or fossil fuels today is not “ fundamentally antihuman ” when there are better , cleaner alternatives .
And it turns out the alternatives — solar and wind , specifically — are now the cheapest sources of electricity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago if ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies had not stood in the way .
The Manhattan Institute Is Still in Love With Fossil Fuels The Manhattan Institute , a New York City-based libertarian think tank , received $ 90,000 from ExxonMobil in 2019 .
Since 1998 , the company has given the organization more than $ 1.4 million .
For the last decade , the institute ’ s go-to energy expert has been Robert Bryce , who , like AEI ’ s Zycher , is no fan of a carbon tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution .
Before he left the think tank at the end of 2019 , Bryce spent much of his time bashing renewable energy and extolling fossil fuels in reports and in the pages of the National Review , New York Post , Wall Street Journal and other publications .
Bryce routinely disparages renewables without providing context .
In an August 2019 column on the conservative website RealClearEnergy , for example , he maintained that the wind industry is “ facing increasing opposition ” at least partly because of what he insists is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other birds , an assertion he has been making ad nauseum for years .
In fact , the top human-caused threats to birds are climate change , buildings , power lines , misapplied pesticides , communications towers , and oil and gas industry fluid waste pits — not wind turbines .
As for wind energy ’ s specific threat to eagles , Dan Ashe , a former director of the U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service , debunked Bryce ’ s fallacious claim in a December 2016 HuffPost column .
“ Public attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused almost exclusively on wind energy , ” Ashe wrote .
“ In truth , wind turbine collisions comprise a fraction of human-caused eagle losses .
Most result from intentional and accidental poisoning and purposeful shooting .
The majority of non-intentional loss occurs when eagles collide with cars or ingest lead shot or bullet fragments in remains and gut piles left by hunters .
Others collide with or are electrocuted on power lines .
Disproportionately and solely focusing on wind energy distorts public perceptions at a time when we desperately need to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hardly a goal that Bryce or any of his Manhattan Institute colleagues would ever publicly endorse .
Doing so would certainly not please their other climate science denier benefactors , which include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation , Charles Koch Foundation , hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer ’ s Mercer Family Foundation , and Mercer ’ s daughter , Rebekah , a Manhattan Institute trustee .
All have donated considerably more money to the think tank than ExxonMobil in recent years and , unlike the oil company , do not pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times recently ran a story pointing out that European and U.S. oil companies are heading in very different directions when it comes to climate change .
While BP , Royal Dutch Shell , and other European-based companies are beginning to sell their oil fields and invest in renewable energy , their U.S. counterparts Chevron and ExxonMobil are betting that oil and gas will continue to make up at least 50 percent of the energy market for at least the next 20 years .
Instead of transitioning to solar and wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending relatively trivial amounts on unproven technologies , such as modular fusion nuclear reactors ( Chevron ) , algae-based biofuel ( ExxonMobil ) , and carbon capture and storage schemes ( both ) , which so far have been costly failures .
If those pipe dreams were ever demonstrated to work at the necessary scale , it would still take decades to commercialize them .
The main reason European oil and gas companies are taking baby steps to embrace renewables ?
Government pressure .
The European Union has set a goal of net-zero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU countries plan to phase out vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel over the next few decades .
Austria , with the most aggressive timetable , will ban internal-combustion-engine vehicle sales after 2020 .
Although California recently announced it would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and most diesel-powered trucks by 2045 , the Trump administration has taken the opposite tack , gutting landmark Obama-era rules curbing vehicle and power plant carbon emissions , rolling back methane emission and coal ash storage regulations , and lifting bans on oil and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meanwhile , has declined to consider climate bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the 2019-20 session .
A September 21 New York Times story cited unnamed energy analysts who excused Chevron and ExxonMobil for not changing their business models .
“ U.S .
lawmakers , ” the analysts told the Times , “ have simply not given them enough incentives to make a radical break.
” A major reason Congress has not given the U.S. oil industry enough incentives to change course is because oil and gas companies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers enough incentives to do nothing .
As mentioned above , $ 401,198 of the $ 991,329 ExxonMobil has spent so far on congressional incumbent campaigns during the current election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers on Capitol Hill .
Likewise , Chevron has spent $ 936,489 on incumbent campaigns so far .
A little more than $ 433,000 — 46 percent — has gone to 82 climate science deniers .
Besides making campaign contributions , oil companies spend a lot of money to keep tabs on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top three oil and gas lobbyists during the 2019-20 cycle are Koch Industries , which has spent $ 30.72 million ; Chevron , which has spent $ 28.54 million ; and ExxonMobil , which has spent $ 28.36 million .
Why does ExxonMobil still support so many climate science deniers in Congress while contending to be so keen on a carbon tax ?
After all , just two years ago the company announced it would donate $ 1 million over two years to Americans for Carbon Dividends , a political action group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some lawmakers are bullish on a carbon tax , but ExxonMobil largely ignores them .
Since January 2019 , eight representatives , two Republicans and six Democrats — and nine senators , all Democrats — have introduced 10 carbon tax bills and one cap-and-trade bill .
But only one of the eight representatives and four of the nine senators received a campaign contribution from ExxonMobil during this election cycle .
The total amount the company donated to the five lawmakers was $ 15,000 — a measly 4 percent of what it gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ExxonMobil ’ s spending on climate disinformation has shrunk dramatically in recent years .
The company ’ s 2019 outlay was less than half of what it spent in 2017 and the lowest amount since 1999 , when Exxon was going through its merger with Mobil .
Likewise , its campaign contributions to climate science deniers in Congress dropped from $ 1.1 million during the 2017-18 election cycle to only $ 400,000 , this cycle .
But the fact remains that , while the company is saying all the right things publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is continuing to fund think tanks and lawmakers who dispute the science and oppose government action .
That suggests that its professed support for a carbon tax is no more than a disingenuous public relations ploy to delay government action .
The tobacco industry used the very same tactic to hold off regulations for decades , and it worked well until it didn ’ t , when the industry lost in court and agreed to pay $ 246 billion in fines to states over 25 years .
Author ’ s note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( $ 415,000 ) , American Enterprise Institute ( $ 110,000 ) and Manhattan Institute ( $ 90,000 ) , ExxonMobil gave grants in 2019 to five other climate science denier groups : Center for American and International Law ( $ 5,000 ) , Federalist Society ( $ 10,000 ) , Hoover Institution ( $ 15,000 ) , Mountain States Legal Foundation ( $ 5,000 ) and the Washington Legal Foundation ( $ 40,000 ) .
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life , a project of the Independent Media @ @

After decades of public denial, ExxonMobil now acknowledges that “the risk of climate change is real” and says it is “committed to being part of the solution,” at least according to the company’s website and statements. To that end, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world claims it supports a federal carbon tax and the Paris climate agreement.
But the company’s recently released grantmaking report shows that it has not ended its two-decade-long campaign to stymie government efforts to address climate change. By ExxonMobil’s own accounting, it gave $690,000 to eight climate science denier groups in 2019, a 10 percent drop from 2018. In addition, it continued to fund federal lawmakers who oppose a carbon tax, despite its supposed longtime support for the idea. Forty percent of the nearly $1 million it has contributed so far to congressional incumbent campaigns during the 2019-20 election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers still in office.
Sixty percent of ExxonMobil’s 2019 donations to climate obstructionist groups for “public information and policy research” went to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while another 30 percent was split between the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute, which have been receiving annual grants from the company since it began financing climate disinformation 22 years ago. All told, ExxonMobil has spent more than $37 million on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019, more than any individual funder besides Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch, the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. Koch-controlled foundations spent more than $145 million on many of the same groups over roughly the same time period.
Did the top three recipients of ExxonMobil grants for climate science denier groups in 2019 toe the company’s publicly stated line on climate? The short answer is no. If actions speak louder than words, the donations call into question ExxonMobil’s commitment to seriously address the climate crisis and deserve a closer look.
The U.S. Chamber Still Opposes Carbon Pollution Standards
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a major player in blocking action on climate change going back to the 1990s, when the business lobby and Exxon were members of the Global Climate Coalition, a consortium of corporations and trade associations opposed to government policies that would cut carbon emissions.
But in 2009 — the same year ExxonMobil first announced its support for a carbon tax in a cynical attempt to derail cap-and-trade climate legislation — the Chamber’s united front began to crack. A handful of Fortune 500 companies — including Apple, Exelon Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric — quit the Chamber over its opposition to the cap-and-trade bill while two other high-profile companies — Nike and Johnson & Johnson — retained their membership but rebuked the business lobby for the same reason. Since then, at least a dozen Chamber members, including Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, Mars, Nestlé and Unilever, have headed for the exits.
By contrast, ExxonMobil not only retained its Chamber membership, but it also pledged $5 million in annual installments to help pay for the Chamber’s $250-million renovation of its Washington, D.C., headquarters. In 2019, the company donated $400,000 for the building rehabilitation and another $15,000 to the Chamber’s Corporate Citizenship Center, bringing its total contributions since 2014 to $4.8 million.
What does ExxonMobil get for its money? Among other things, the business lobby goes to bat for it in court by filing lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in the court of public opinion by funding misleading climate-related reports. A prime example is the Chamber’s widely debunked 2017 report that grossly exaggerated the cost to the U.S. economy of complying with the Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump cited that report as his primary rationale for ignoring the U.S. commitment to the accord, and he has vowed to officially pull the United States out in early November.
However, in 2019, the Chamber seemed to take a 180-degree turn, declaring on its website: “Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.” Although one could quibble with the assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change when in fact burning fossil fuels is the main cause, it was a far cry from when the organization maintained in comments submitted to the EPA in 2009 that “a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans.”
But the Chamber’s turnabout was not complete. Although it now concedes the reality of human-caused climate change, it is still pushing private-sector innovation as the solution to the climate crisis rather than much-needed government regulation, which historically has driven technological advances.
So, while the Chamber supports government funding for research and development of advanced nuclear reactors, utility-scale batteries, and carbon capture and storage technology, it backed the Trump administration’s rollbacks of the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced power plant carbon emissions and its 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule, which would have protected small streams, wetlands and groundwater from toxic chemicals.
More recently, the Chamber supported the Trump administration’s weakening of the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act by limiting public input in the infrastructure project approval process and rescinding a requirement that federal agencies consider a proposed project’s impact on the climate.
Unlike ExxonMobil’s professed support for a carbon tax, the Chamber has no official position, but if carbon tax legislation ever made it to the Senate or House floor, it presumably would oppose it given its dim view of government regulation.
Likewise, the Chamber’s avowed support for U.S. compliance with the Paris climate accord includes a major caveat. Dan Byers, vice president for policy at the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, told Politico in August 2019 that it is “absolutely important for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate agreement” but added that the “Obama administration’s pledge was unrealistic, [and] was going to have a negative impact on our economy. And so we’d like to see that revisited.” In other words, the Chamber would like the United States to remain a party to the agreement so that it could lobby to weaken the U.S. commitment to it.
American Enterprise Institute Still Downplays the Climate Threat
In 2019, ExxonMobil gave the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) $110,000, bringing its total since 1998 to $4.76 million — more than any other of its climate science denier grantees. The 82-year-old, free market think tank also receives generous funding from other climate disinformation network supporters, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation.
What does ExxonMobil get for its money from AEI? A cheerleader for fossil fuels, economist Benjamin Zycher, who — contrary to the company’s professed climate positions — argues that a carbon tax would be “ineffective” and has called the Paris agreement an “absurdity.”
In March, Zycher published a report arguing that “any plausible policy” to curb carbon emissions “would yield trivial effects while imposing large costs.” Instead, he recommended the federal government adopt a policy of “watchful waiting, adaptation over time, and ongoing investment in resilience against the future effects of climactic [sic] changes.”
ExxonMobil has spent more than $37 million on climate science denier organizations from 1998 through 2019.
How could Zycher recommend “watchful waiting” given the large costs climate change is already imposing right now? Granted, he published his report before this summer, when heat waves and wildfires burned up the West Coast and hurricanes slammed the Southeast. But last summer was not that different, and climate change-related disasters have been racking up considerable damage over the last few years. From 2017 through 2019, there were 44 unique extreme weather and climate-linked events across the country causing damages of $1 billion or more, collectively costing more than $460 billion.
Nevertheless, Zycher insists fossil fuels are indispensable. “Opposition to fossil fuels implies a reduction in policies — education, training, health care, and the like — that add to human capital and so increase incomes and the demand for conventional energy,” he wrote. “Therefore, opposition to fossil fuels is fundamentally antihuman.”
Zycher made the same argument in a May 7 column in the Financial Times, ranting that environmentalists who aim to deprive the world of fossil fuels “hate humanity, and the planet too.”
Putting aside Zycher’s ad hominem attack on the “environmental left,” he deliberately confuses the societal benefits of energy with how it is generated. At several junctures in history, humans switched from wood to coal to natural gas to warm their homes. Likewise, they switched from whale oil to kerosene to incandescents to LEDs to illuminate their homes.
Opposition to coal and kerosene in the past or fossil fuels today is not “fundamentally antihuman” when there are better, cleaner alternatives. And it turns out the alternatives — solar and wind, specifically — are now the cheapest sources of electricity, and they could have been more widely available years ago if ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies had not stood in the way.
The Manhattan Institute Is Still in Love With Fossil Fuels
The Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based libertarian think tank, received $90,000 from ExxonMobil in 2019. Since 1998, the company has given the organization more than $1.4 million.
For the last decade, the institute’s go-to energy expert has been Robert Bryce, who, like AEI’s Zycher, is no fan of a carbon tax, ExxonMobil’s supposed pet climate solution. Before he left the think tank at the end of 2019, Bryce spent much of his time bashing renewable energy and extolling fossil fuels in reports and in the pages of the National Review, New York Post, Wall Street Journal and other publications.
Bryce routinely disparages renewables without providing context. In an August 2019 column on the conservative website RealClearEnergy, for example, he maintained that the wind industry is “facing increasing opposition” at least partly because of what he insists is the major threat it poses to eagles and other birds, an assertion he has been making ad nauseum for years. In fact, the top human-caused threats to birds are climate change, buildings, power lines, misapplied pesticides, communications towers, and oil and gas industry fluid waste pits — not wind turbines.
As for wind energy’s specific threat to eagles, Dan Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, debunked Bryce’s fallacious claim in a December 2016 HuffPost column. “Public attention on eagle loss in recent years has focused almost exclusively on wind energy,” Ashe wrote. “In truth, wind turbine collisions comprise a fraction of human-caused eagle losses. Most result from intentional and accidental poisoning and purposeful shooting. The majority of non-intentional loss occurs when eagles collide with cars or ingest lead shot or bullet fragments in remains and gut piles left by hunters. Others collide with or are electrocuted on power lines. Disproportionately and solely focusing on wind energy distorts public perceptions at a time when we desperately need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Cutting carbon pollution is hardly a goal that Bryce or any of his Manhattan Institute colleagues would ever publicly endorse. Doing so would certainly not please their other climate science denier benefactors, which include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Charles Koch Foundation, hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer’s Mercer Family Foundation, and Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, a Manhattan Institute trustee. All have donated considerably more money to the think tank than ExxonMobil in recent years and, unlike the oil company, do not pretend to care about the climate crisis.
Maintaining the Status Quo in Congress
The New York Times recently ran a story pointing out that European and U.S. oil companies are heading in very different directions when it comes to climate change. While BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and other European-based companies are beginning to sell their oil fields and invest in renewable energy, their U.S. counterparts Chevron and ExxonMobil are betting that oil and gas will continue to make up at least 50 percent of the energy market for at least the next 20 years.
Instead of transitioning to solar and wind, the two U.S. oil giants are spending relatively trivial amounts on unproven technologies, such as modular fusion nuclear reactors (Chevron), algae-based biofuel (ExxonMobil), and carbon capture and storage schemes (both), which so far have been costly failures. If those pipe dreams were ever demonstrated to work at the necessary scale, it would still take decades to commercialize them.
The main reason European oil and gas companies are taking baby steps to embrace renewables? Government pressure. The European Union has set a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and seven EU countries plan to phase out vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel over the next few decades. Austria, with the most aggressive timetable, will ban internal-combustion-engine vehicle sales after 2020.
Although California recently announced it would ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and most diesel-powered trucks by 2045, the Trump administration has taken the opposite tack, gutting landmark Obama-era rules curbing vehicle and power plant carbon emissions, rolling back methane emission and coal ash storage regulations, and lifting bans on oil and gas drilling on public land. Congress, meanwhile, has declined to consider climate bills that have been introduced since the beginning of the 2019-20 session.
The September 21 New York Times story cited unnamed energy analysts who excused Chevron and ExxonMobil for not changing their business models. “U.S. lawmakers,” the analysts told the Times, “have simply not given them enough incentives to make a radical break.”
A major reason Congress has not given the U.S. oil industry enough incentives to change course is because oil and gas companies have been giving a critical mass of U.S. lawmakers enough incentives to do nothing. As mentioned above, $401,198 of the $991,329 ExxonMobil has spent so far on congressional incumbent campaigns during the current election cycle has gone to 115 of the 150 climate science deniers on Capitol Hill. Likewise, Chevron has spent $936,489 on incumbent campaigns so far. A little more than $433,000 — 46 percent — has gone to 82 climate science deniers.
Besides making campaign contributions, oil companies spend a lot of money to keep tabs on their friends in Washington. So far, the top three oil and gas lobbyists during the 2019-20 cycle are Koch Industries, which has spent $30.72 million; Chevron, which has spent $28.54 million; and ExxonMobil, which has spent $28.36 million.
Why does ExxonMobil still support so many climate science deniers in Congress while contending to be so keen on a carbon tax? After all, just two years ago the company announced it would donate $1 million over two years to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a political action group created to promote a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Some lawmakers are bullish on a carbon tax, but ExxonMobil largely ignores them. Since January 2019, eight representatives, two Republicans and six Democrats — and nine senators, all Democrats — have introduced 10 carbon tax bills and one cap-and-trade bill. But only one of the eight representatives and four of the nine senators received a campaign contribution from ExxonMobil during this election cycle. The total amount the company donated to the five lawmakers was $15,000 — a measly 4 percent of what it gave climate science deniers.
To be sure, ExxonMobil’s spending on climate disinformation has shrunk dramatically in recent years. The company’s 2019 outlay was less than half of what it spent in 2017 and the lowest amount since 1999, when Exxon was going through its merger with Mobil. Likewise, its campaign contributions to climate science deniers in Congress dropped from $1.1 million during the 2017-18 election cycle to only $400,000, this cycle.
But the fact remains that, while the company is saying all the right things publicly about the need to address climate change, it is continuing to fund think tanks and lawmakers who dispute the science and oppose government action. That suggests that its professed support for a carbon tax is no more than a disingenuous public relations ploy to delay government action.
The tobacco industry used the very same tactic to hold off regulations for decades, and it worked well until it didn’t, when the industry lost in court and agreed to pay $246 billion in fines to states over 25 years.
Author’s note: Besides the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($415,000), American Enterprise Institute ($110,000) and Manhattan Institute ($90,000), ExxonMobil gave grants in 2019 to five other climate science denier groups: Center for American and International Law ($5,000), Federalist Society ($10,000), Hoover Institution ($15,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000) and the Washington Legal Foundation ($40,000). For an overview of ExxonMobil’s grants from 1998 through 2019, click here.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-20--300,000 Excess Deaths This Year Suggest COVID Death Rate Is Higher Than Reported

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) reported on Tuesday that hundreds of thousands more Americans died this year than in previous years , likely owing to the coronavirus pandemic .
The report compared typical yearly death counts to the death count for 2020 between February 1 and September 16 .
During that eight month period , the U.S. saw around 285,000 more deaths than might have been expected given past trends .
Given that the report is based on numbers from several weeks ago , there ’ s a high likelihood that excess deaths have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , October 20 , compared to previous years .
Even after accounting for deaths directly attributed to COVID-19 , there remain tens of thousands of excess deaths recorded this year .
While the official count for the total number of Americans who have died of the coronavirus as of September 16 was around 201,363 , there still remain over 83,000 deaths that are in excess of a typical year .
While some of those excess deaths may be due to other causes , such as individuals being reluctant to seek medical help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to COVID-19 at medical facilities — for illnesses that can be life-threatening if left untreated , most experts , citing scientific research on the subject , believe that many of the tens of thousands of extra deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to coronavirus .
“ The number of people dying from this pandemic is higher than we think .
This study shows it .
Others have as well , ” Steven Woolf , the director emeritus at the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University , said to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of 2020 , the U.S. was actually seeing fewer deaths than were typically recorded in the past .
Death rates were at -1 percent compared to prior years in the weeks of January 12 and January 19 .
The rate went back to being comparable to previous years ( zero percent ) the following week , and then began to climb steadily in the weeks following , as the pandemic hit the U.S .
While most health experts would agree that the true toll of coronavirus deaths is probably higher than what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supporters of President Donald Trump , in trying to put a positive spin on Trump ’ s serious mishandling of the public health crisis , have tried to suggest otherwise .
The president himself has sent retweets through his Twitter account wrongly making similar claims , including sharing a tweet in August from a QAnon user errantly claiming that only 6 percent of deaths from the official figures were valid .
That figure came from a separate CDC study that noted 94 percent of COVID-19 deaths listed a comorbidity on the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongly extrapolated by those backing Trump , including a significant number of QAnon followers , that only 6 percent of deaths being reported were legitimately caused by the coronavirus .
In fact , that reasoning is seriously flawed and highly misleading because regardless of whether comorbidities were a factor , the underlying cause of those patients ’ deaths was COVID-19 , as that very same CDC report being cited had noted .
“ When we ask if COVID killed somebody , it means ‘ Did they die sooner than they would have if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? '
” Justin Lessler , epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , said to Scientific American earlier this year .
In truth , unless indicated otherwise , while those comorbidities may have been serious , it was the coronavirus that led to the death of those individuals .
As of Tuesday afternoon , 225,698 Americans have died from coronavirus .
According to projections from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , more than 314,000 Americans are predicted to perish due to the virus @ @ @ @

Most experts agree, even accounting for COVID deaths that were documented, most excess deaths are due to the virus.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on Tuesday that hundreds of thousands more Americans died this year than in previous years, likely owing to the coronavirus pandemic.
The report compared typical yearly death counts to the death count for 2020 between February 1 and September 16. During that eight-month period, the U.S. saw around 285,000 more deaths than might have been expected given past trends.
Given that the report is based on numbers from several weeks ago, there’s a high likelihood that excess deaths have already surpassed 300,000 as of today’s date, October 20, compared to previous years.
Even after accounting for deaths directly attributed to COVID-19, there remain tens of thousands of excess deaths recorded this year. While the official count for the total number of Americans who have died of the coronavirus as of September 16 was around 201,363, there still remain over 83,000 deaths that are in excess of a typical year.
While some of those excess deaths may be due to other causes, such as individuals being reluctant to seek medical help — out of fear of being exposed to COVID-19 at medical facilities — for illnesses that can be life-threatening if left untreated, most experts, citing scientific research on the subject, believe that many of the tens of thousands of extra deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to coronavirus.
“The number of people dying from this pandemic is higher than we think. This study shows it. Others have as well,” Steven Woolf, the director emeritus at the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, said to The Washington Post.
Indeed, at the beginning of 2020, the U.S. was actually seeing fewer deaths than were typically recorded in the past. Death rates were at -1 percent compared to prior years in the weeks of January 12 and January 19. The rate went back to being comparable to previous years (0 percent) the following week, and then began to climb steadily in the weeks following, as the pandemic hit the U.S.
While most health experts would agree that the true toll of coronavirus deaths is probably higher than what’s being reported, a number of supporters of President Donald Trump, in trying to put a positive spin on Trump’s serious mishandling of the public health crisis, have tried to suggest otherwise. The president himself has sent retweets through his Twitter account wrongly making similar claims, including sharing a tweet in August from a QAnon user errantly claiming that only 6 percent of deaths from the official figures were valid.
That figure came from a separate CDC study that noted 94 percent of COVID-19 deaths listed a comorbidity on the death certificates. From that, it was wrongly extrapolated by those backing Trump, including a significant number of QAnon followers, that only 6 percent of deaths being reported were legitimately caused by the coronavirus.
In fact, that reasoning is seriously flawed and highly misleading because regardless of whether comorbidities were a factor, the underlying cause of those patients’ deaths was COVID-19, as that very same CDC report being cited had noted.
“When we ask if COVID killed somebody, it means ‘Did they die sooner than they would have if they didn’t have the virus?'” Justin Lessler, epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said to Scientific American earlier this year.
In truth, unless indicated otherwise, while those comorbidities may have been serious, it was the coronavirus that led to the death of those individuals.
As of Tuesday afternoon, 225,698 Americans have died from coronavirus. According to projections from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, more than 314,000 Americans are predicted to perish due to the virus by December 31.
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--2020-10-20--Trump Makes Alarming Call for AG Barr to Investigate Biden “Before the Election”

During a Fox News interview on Tuesday morning , President Donald Trump called on Attorney General William Barr to investigate his political rival , Joe Biden , and his son , Hunter , over allegations made in a disputed story by an unnamed staff reporter in the New York Post last week .
The call from the president for his attorney general to investigate Hunter Biden comes just two weeks before Election Day 2020 .
“ We have got to get the attorney general to act .
He ’ s got to act , and he ’ s got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to a question on the matter from the hosts of “ Fox & Friends.
” Trump also said he wanted Barr to “ appoint somebody ” to investigate the matter before the presidential election takes place , raising serious questions about the political motivations behind this request .
“ This is major corruption and this has to be known about before the election , ” the president said .
Trump ’ s comments are extraordinary and though he has done similar things in the past , pushing a member of his cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an enormous conflict of interest .
Presidents in the past have attempted to distance themselves , not involve themselves directly as Trump has done , in such matters .
Trump ’ s demands have come about in response to an expose published by The Post last week , alleging that information obtained by the president ’ s personal lawyer , former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani , revealed corruption on Biden ’ s part in relation to his son ’ s business dealings in Ukraine .
Giuliani supplied the tabloid with copies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden , which supposedly expose the alleged corruption .
But the authenticity of the emails has not been independently verified .
Past accusations of corruption , too , have been debunked on several occasions by more reputable news organizations .
It ’ s widely believed by a number of national security experts that the story published by the Post doesn ’ t carry any weight .
Many of those experts also believe there is a strong likelihood that the “ evidence ” obtained by Giuliani and given to the publication is part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt Biden ’ s electoral chances .
Indeed , the FBI is currently investigating whether the materials supplied to Giuliani are part of a plan by the Kremlin to help Trump win reelection .
Allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Hunter Biden , in relation to his business dealings in Ukraine , were dismissed by two Republican-led Senate committees in September .
In spite of those findings , Trump and his political allies have continued to claim , without any real evidence , that both Bidens have committed crimes .
Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasions toward individuals or organizations that refuse to take his claims seriously .
Asked by Reuters ‘ White House correspondent Jeff Mason on Monday why he continues to call Biden a criminal based on the unverified claims , Trump turned on the reporter and called him a criminal , too .
“ You know who ’ s a criminal here ?
You ’ re a criminal for not reporting it , ” Trump said .
During the same “ Fox & Friends ” interview in which Trump demanded Barr take action , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-California ) was acting like a criminal .
“ This guy , he ought to be put away , or he ought to be , you know , something should happen with him , ” Trump said .
In December of 2019 , Trump was impeached under two separate articles , one of which was abuse of power related to attempting to coerce leaders in Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden .
“ Using the high powers of his office , President Trump solicited the interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 presidential election , that article of impeachment said .
Trump had demanded that leaders in Ukraine “ publicly announce investigations ” into Biden , conditioning “ two official acts ” of his office — providing military aid to Kyiv and hosting Ukraine ’ s President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House — on Ukraine ’ s doing so .
While not necessarily attempting to coerce Barr , Trump ’ s actions in calling for the attorney general to investigate Biden in a way that would influence the outcome of the election to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse of power .

The demands by Trump are based on allegations many experts believe are part of a Russian disinformation operation.
During a Fox News interview on Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump called on Attorney General William Barr to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, over allegations made in a disputed story by an unnamed staff reporter in the New York Post last week.
The call from the president for his attorney general to investigate Hunter Biden comes just two weeks before Election Day 2020.
“We have got to get the attorney general to act. He’s got to act, and he’s got to act fast,” Trump said in response to a question on the matter from the hosts of “Fox & Friends.”
Trump also said he wanted Barr to “appoint somebody” to investigate the matter before the presidential election takes place, raising serious questions about the political motivations behind this request.
“This is major corruption and this has to be known about before the election,” the president said.
Trump’s comments are extraordinary and though he has done similar things in the past, pushing a member of his cabinet to investigate a political rival clearly suggests an enormous conflict of interest. Presidents in the past have attempted to distance themselves, not involve themselves directly as Trump has done, in such matters.
Trump’s demands have come about in response to an expose published by The Post last week, alleging that information obtained by the president’s personal lawyer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, revealed corruption on Biden’s part in relation to his son’s business dealings in Ukraine.
Giuliani supplied the tabloid with copies of emails, purportedly to and from Hunter Biden, which supposedly expose the alleged corruption. But the authenticity of the emails has not been independently verified. Past accusations of corruption, too, have been debunked on several occasions by more reputable news organizations.
It’s widely believed by a number of national security experts that the story published by the Post doesn’t carry any weight. Many of those experts also believe there is a strong likelihood that the “evidence” obtained by Giuliani and given to the publication is part of a Russian disinformation campaign meant to hurt Biden’s electoral chances.
Indeed, the FBI is currently investigating whether the materials supplied to Giuliani are part of a plan by the Kremlin to help Trump win reelection.
Allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Hunter Biden, in relation to his business dealings in Ukraine, were dismissed by two Republican-led Senate committees in September. In spite of those findings, Trump and his political allies have continued to claim, without any real evidence, that both Bidens have committed crimes.
Trump himself has lashed out on a number of occasions toward individuals or organizations that refuse to take his claims seriously. Asked by Reuters‘ White House correspondent Jeff Mason on Monday why he continues to call Biden a criminal based on the unverified claims, Trump turned on the reporter and called him a criminal, too.
“You know who’s a criminal here? You’re a criminal for not reporting it,” Trump said.
During the same “Fox & Friends” interview in which Trump demanded Barr take action, the president also implied that the House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) was acting like a criminal.
“This guy, he ought to be put away, or he ought to be, you know, something should happen with him,” Trump said.
In December of 2019, Trump was impeached under two separate articles, one of which was abuse of power related to attempting to coerce leaders in Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden.
“Using the high powers of his office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government” in the 2020 presidential election, that article of impeachment said.
Trump had demanded that leaders in Ukraine “publicly announce investigations” into Biden, conditioning “two official acts” of his office — providing military aid to Kyiv and hosting Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House — on Ukraine’s doing so.
While not necessarily attempting to coerce Barr, Trump’s actions in calling for the attorney general to investigate Biden in a way that would influence the outcome of the election to favor Trump could also be considered an abuse of power.
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--2020-10-20--Trump and Biden’s Mics Will Be Muted for at Least Some of the Final Debate

The Commission on Presidential Debates ( CPD ) announced on Monday that it would mute the microphones of both candidates for portions of Thursday night ’ s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden — a move that Trump has described as “ unfair , ” even though it will be applied to both candidates equally .
Under the new rules , each candidate will have their microphone cut off during the initial two-minute answer period to allow their opponent to answer a question uninterrupted on each of the six topics that will be discussed during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mics will be turned back on for both candidates to allow a direct conversation between them .
“ Both campaigns this week again reaffirmed their agreement to the two-minute , uninterrupted rule , ” the CPD said in a statement .
“ The Commission is announcing today that in order to enforce this agreed upon rule , the only candidate whose microphone will be open during these two-minute periods is the candidate who has the floor under the rules.
” Recognizing that neither campaign may be completely satisfied with the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One may think they go too far , and one may think they do not go far enough .
We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people , for whom these debates are held.
” The rules change appeared to be in response to criticisms of the first debate between the two candidates , which took place in late September .
During that event , Trump constantly interrupted Biden , speaking over his opponent at least 71 times ( versus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump also repeatedly interrupted the moderator , Chris Wallace , frequently not letting him finish a question .
While some interruption during a debate is unavoidable , reviews of the first debate were largely negative , with a number of observers expressing displeasure at Trump ’ s loutish and unpresidential behavior and his constant talking out of turn .
The following day , the CPD said in a statement that the first debate “ made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their announcement on Monday of the new rules appears to be an attempt to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that occurred at the first debate in September .
President Trump , speaking to reporters on Air Force One regarding the changes for Thursday night ’ s debate , expressed misgivings but did not indicate he would drop out of the event like he did last week , when format changes were announced for what would have been the second debate between the candidates .
“ I ’ ll participate .
I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien also decried the rule change as “ completely unacceptable , ” adding that it was wrong to have the possibility of an “ unnamed ” person muting the mics .
Stepien ’ s complaints went further .
In a two-page letter to the debate commission , he denounced the topics of the debate itself that were announced late last week and suggested that the debate should focus solely on foreign policy matters .
“ As is long standing custom , and as had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we had expected that foreign policy would be the central focus of the October 22 debate , ” Stepien wrote .
“ We urge you to recalibrate the topics and return to subjects which had already been confirmed.
” The Biden campaign disputed Stepien ’ s letter , noting that foreign policy was never promised as the theme of the final debate .
“ The Trump campaign is lying about that now because Donald Trump is afraid to face more questions about his disastrous COVID response , ” TJ Ducklo , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , press materials from the CPD published in early September on the formats for all three planned debates , there is no indication that the final debate would have its prime focus on foreign policy matters .
All that is said about the third debate , within that document , is that it “ will be identical to the first presidential debate ” — that is , six segments of approximately 15 minutes each , with “ major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some aspects of foreign policy , will be one of the six topics of Thursday night ’ s debate .
The other five topics will be COVID-19 , American families , race in the U.S. , climate change and leadership .
The debate is set to take place on Thursday evening at 9 pm Eastern Time .

Although the rule change will affect both candidates equally, Trump told reporters he sees it as “unfair” to him.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) announced on Monday that it would mute the microphones of both candidates for portions of Thursday night’s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden — a move that Trump has described as “unfair,” even though it will be applied to both candidates equally.
Under the new rules, each candidate will have their microphone cut off during the initial two-minute answer period to allow their opponent to answer a question uninterrupted on each of the six topics that will be discussed during the debate. Following the initial responses, the mics will be turned back on for both candidates to allow a direct conversation between them.
“Both campaigns this week again reaffirmed their agreement to the two-minute, uninterrupted rule,” the CPD said in a statement. “The Commission is announcing today that in order to enforce this agreed upon rule, the only candidate whose microphone will be open during these two-minute periods is the candidate who has the floor under the rules.”
Recognizing that neither campaign may be completely satisfied with the rule changes, the CPD noted:
“One may think they go too far, and one may think they do not go far enough. We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held.” Related Story News | Politics & Elections Days Before Debate, Trump Attacks Moderator After Being Advised to Be Nicer Trump's complaints about debate moderator Kristen Welker comes days after his campaign adviser gave her glowing praise. Truthout
The rules change appeared to be in response to criticisms of the first debate between the two candidates, which took place in late September. During that event, Trump constantly interrupted Biden, speaking over his opponent at least 71 times (versus Biden interrupting him just 22 times). Trump also repeatedly interrupted the moderator, Chris Wallace, frequently not letting him finish a question.
While some interruption during a debate is unavoidable, reviews of the first debate were largely negative, with a number of observers expressing displeasure at Trump’s loutish and unpresidential behavior and his constant talking out of turn.
The following day, the CPD said in a statement that the first debate “made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues.” Their announcement on Monday of the new rules appears to be an attempt to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that occurred at the first debate in September.
President Trump, speaking to reporters on Air Force One regarding the changes for Thursday night’s debate, expressed misgivings but did not indicate he would drop out of the event like he did last week, when format changes were announced for what would have been the second debate between the candidates.
“I’ll participate. I just think it’s very unfair,” he said.
Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien also decried the rule change as “completely unacceptable,” adding that it was wrong to have the possibility of an “unnamed” person muting the mics.
Stepien’s complaints went further. In a two-page letter to the debate commission, he denounced the topics of the debate itself that were announced late last week and suggested that the debate should focus solely on foreign policy matters.
“As is long standing custom, and as had been promised by the Commission on Presidential Debates, we had expected that foreign policy would be the central focus of the October 22 debate,” Stepien wrote. “We urge you to recalibrate the topics and return to subjects which had already been confirmed.”
The Biden campaign disputed Stepien’s letter, noting that foreign policy was never promised as the theme of the final debate.
“The Trump campaign is lying about that now because Donald Trump is afraid to face more questions about his disastrous COVID response,” TJ Ducklo, a Biden campaign spokesperson, said.
Indeed, press materials from the CPD published in early September on the formats for all three planned debates, there is no indication that the final debate would have its prime focus on foreign policy matters. All that is said about the third debate, within that document, is that it “will be identical to the first presidential debate” — that is, six segments of approximately 15 minutes each, with “major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate.”
National security, which encompasses some aspects of foreign policy, will be one of the six topics of Thursday night’s debate. The other five topics will be COVID-19, American families, race in the U.S., climate change and leadership.
The debate is set to take place on Thursday evening at 9 pm Eastern 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.