truthout--2020-10-18--Nursing Home Residents Already Faced Voting Barriers. COVID Has Made It Worse.

The convergence of the coronavirus pandemic and election season has complicated this year ’ s voting for residents of nursing homes , assisted living facilities and other long-term care centers .
Many seniors who need help to get or fill out their ballots may be stymied by shifting rules about family visits .
Voting procedures — whether in person or by mail — are under increased scrutiny , adding to the confusion .
Facilities that used to host voting precincts likely won ’ t do so this year because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19 .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the public right now , we ’ re more vulnerable , and our immune systems are compromised anyway , ” said Janice Phillips , a 14-year resident of Village Square Healthcare Center , a skilled nursing facility in San Marcos , California .
“ We ’ re basically locked in.
” Phillips , 75 , who has rheumatoid arthritis , has voted by absentee ballot for years without problems .
This year she is encouraging her fellow residents to vote by mail as well .
She works with the facility ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to make sure folks are registered .
As president of the resident council , Phillips has also raised the issue at community meetings .
Older Americans are a consistent voting bloc courted by both parties .
According to AARP , 71 % of Americans 65 and older voted in the 2016 presidential election , compared with 46 % of people 18-29 .
“ For many older adults , it ’ s a point of pride for them that they ’ ve voted in every election since they were 18 , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association .
But hardly anyone has been allowed inside skilled nursing facilities since the start of the pandemic , except for staff members and the occasional state health official , or family members in certain circumstances .
In California and beyond , facilities are beginning to open up in counties with low transmission rates , since federal rules changed in September to allow for more lenient visiting policies .
At the same time , outbreaks continue to plague some senior facilities , despite improved testing of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Santa Cruz County health officials reported a major outbreak at the Watsonville Post-Acute Center , which has infected 46 residents , killing nine of them , and infecting 15 staff members .
California officials are pressing nursing homes and senior centers to give residents who want to vote the opportunity .
The Department of Public Health on Oct. 5 sent a letter to all those facilities , explaining they have an obligation to inform and assist residents with voting , including what actions are permissible for staffers to undertake in helping voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safe environment through the election by limiting nonessential visitors , properly using protective gear such as gloves and handling ballots as little as possible .
In years past , civic groups such as the League of Women Voters would stop by to give presentations on what ’ s on the ballot .
Candidates for local office would hit nursing homes to make pitches .
“ In the context of a pandemic , we just can ’ t do it this year , ” said Michelle Bishop , voter access and engagement manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before the pandemic , nursing homes and assisted living facilities also often served as polling places .
Residents could easily access voting booths , often set up in a lobby or community room .
That was especially important because nursing homes are likely to be accessible to people with mobility problems , Bishop said .
Otherwise , facilities would often organize bus trips and outings to polling places .
In California , the last day to register to vote online or by mail is Oct. 19 , though voters can register in person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All registered voters will receive a ballot in the mail , and those postmarked by Nov. 3 will still be counted in California for 17 days after the election .
Advocates say it ’ s important for newer residents at skilled nursing facilities to make sure they ’ ve registered at their new address or have plans to get their ballot delivered to them from their former homes .
Other states are also sending ballots to all registered voters by mail this year on various time frames .
All states permit seniors or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to request an absentee ballot .
Once they have a ballot in hand , some older adults need help from family or staff at their facilities to complete it correctly and send it back to election officials .
The federal directive to relax visiting rules could ease some of that pressure , but the situation varies by facility .
For people whose relatives can not help them , it may fall to staff members to set up calls and video chats between residents and their families , or provide the assistance to residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow nursing home staffers to help with ballots to avoid influencing votes .
Even if they can assist , employees may be stretched too thin to help .
In a year when nursing home staff members are spending an extra hour each day putting on protective gear , there isn ’ t always extra time to make sure every resident is registered and voting , said Dr. Karl Steinberg , chief medical officer for Mariner Health Central , a nursing home management company in California .
“ There ’ s a perennial workforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been exacerbated by this ” pandemic , Steinberg said .
“ This year with all the chaos , there may be less staff time available to help people with voting.
” Tracy Greene Mintz , whose business , Senior Care Training , trains senior care workers , is responsible for staffing at 100 nursing homes in California .
She said she started ringing alarm bells about voting rights in August .
“ Elected officials do not care about nursing homes , period , ” Greene Mintz said .
“ They assume residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make contributions.
” She asked the California Department of Public Health , which surveys skilled nursing facilities every six weeks about COVID-19 infection control , to add a question on how facilities were planning for elections .
The department declined .
So she set up webinars with facility administrators and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to go over information on how to submit and track absentee ballots .
She has also urged state officials to provide a statewide plan that facilities could use as a blueprint .
She wrote one herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , the California Association of Health Facilities .
Still , California is in better shape than some other states , said Raúl Macías , a lawyer with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice , a law and public policy institute .
Elsewhere , residents may have to apply for an absentee ballot , and sometimes must provide a reason they can ’ t vote in person .
California also has the Voter Bill of Rights , which allows individuals to designate someone to help them fill out and drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as North Carolina , assistance can come only from designated bipartisan voting assistance teams , which may be harder to recruit during a pandemic , Macías said .
No matter the state , state and county elections officials and facility administrators should draft voting plans , said Bishop , of the Disabilities Rights Network .
It will help staff know the proper way to assist residents without influencing their votes , and residents know their voting rights .
“ There is a bit of a gray area on whose responsibility this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s one of the years when we start asking ‘ Whose responsibility is it ?
’ Who cares ?
We have to get it done.
” If they can ’ t get access to ballots or need help , California residents can contact the state ’ s long-term care ombudsman program , which can investigate complaints , help them resolve the issue and take the problem to the Department of Public Health if it can ’ t be fixed .
This KHN story first published on California Healthline , a service @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The convergence of the coronavirus pandemic and election season has complicated this year’s voting for residents of nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other long-term care centers.
Many seniors who need help to get or fill out their ballots may be stymied by shifting rules about family visits. Voting procedures — whether in person or by mail — are under increased scrutiny, adding to the confusion. Facilities that used to host voting precincts likely won’t do so this year because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.
“We’re basically not allowed to go out into the public right now, we’re more vulnerable, and our immune systems are compromised anyway,” said Janice Phillips, a 14-year resident of Village Square Healthcare Center, a skilled nursing facility in San Marcos, California. “We’re basically locked in.”
Phillips, 75, who has rheumatoid arthritis, has voted by absentee ballot for years without problems. This year she is encouraging her fellow residents to vote by mail as well. She works with the facility’s activities staff, going resident by resident, to make sure folks are registered. As president of the resident council, Phillips has also raised the issue at community meetings.
Older Americans are a consistent voting bloc courted by both parties.
According to AARP, 71% of Americans 65 and older voted in the 2016 presidential election, compared with 46% of people 18-29. “For many older adults, it’s a point of pride for them that they’ve voted in every election since they were 18,” said Leza Coleman, the executive director of California’s Long-Term Care Ombudsman Association.
But hardly anyone has been allowed inside skilled nursing facilities since the start of the pandemic, except for staff members and the occasional state health official, or family members in certain circumstances. In California and beyond, facilities are beginning to open up in counties with low transmission rates, since federal rules changed in September to allow for more lenient visiting policies.
At the same time, outbreaks continue to plague some senior facilities, despite improved testing of staff and other safety measures. On Wednesday, Santa Cruz County health officials reported a major outbreak at the Watsonville Post-Acute Center, which has infected 46 residents, killing nine of them, and infecting 15 staff members.
California officials are pressing nursing homes and senior centers to give residents who want to vote the opportunity. The Department of Public Health on Oct. 5 sent a letter to all those facilities, explaining they have an obligation to inform and assist residents with voting, including what actions are permissible for staffers to undertake in helping voters. It also includes advice about maintaining a safe environment through the election by limiting nonessential visitors, properly using protective gear such as gloves and handling ballots as little as possible.
In years past, civic groups such as the League of Women Voters would stop by to give presentations on what’s on the ballot. Candidates for local office would hit nursing homes to make pitches. “In the context of a pandemic, we just can’t do it this year,” said Michelle Bishop, voter access and engagement manager with the National Disability Rights Network.
Before the pandemic, nursing homes and assisted living facilities also often served as polling places. Residents could easily access voting booths, often set up in a lobby or community room. That was especially important because nursing homes are likely to be accessible to people with mobility problems, Bishop said.
Otherwise, facilities would often organize bus trips and outings to polling places.
In California, the last day to register to vote online or by mail is Oct. 19, though voters can register in person up to and including Election Day. All registered voters will receive a ballot in the mail, and those postmarked by Nov. 3 will still be counted in California for 17 days after the election. Advocates say it’s important for newer residents at skilled nursing facilities to make sure they’ve registered at their new address or have plans to get their ballot delivered to them from their former homes.
Other states are also sending ballots to all registered voters by mail this year on various time frames. All states permit seniors or people who have trouble reaching polling stations to request an absentee ballot.
Once they have a ballot in hand, some older adults need help from family or staff at their facilities to complete it correctly and send it back to election officials. The federal directive to relax visiting rules could ease some of that pressure, but the situation varies by facility. For people whose relatives cannot help them, it may fall to staff members to set up calls and video chats between residents and their families, or provide the assistance to residents themselves.
Some states don’t allow nursing home staffers to help with ballots to avoid influencing votes. Even if they can assist, employees may be stretched too thin to help. In a year when nursing home staff members are spending an extra hour each day putting on protective gear, there isn’t always extra time to make sure every resident is registered and voting, said Dr. Karl Steinberg, chief medical officer for Mariner Health Central, a nursing home management company in California.
“There’s a perennial workforce shortage in nursing homes and it’s been exacerbated by this” pandemic, Steinberg said. “This year with all the chaos, there may be less staff time available to help people with voting.”
Tracy Greene Mintz, whose business, Senior Care Training, trains senior care workers, is responsible for staffing at 100 nursing homes in California. She said she started ringing alarm bells about voting rights in August.
“Elected officials do not care about nursing homes, period,” Greene Mintz said. “They assume residents don’t vote and don’t make contributions.”
She asked the California Department of Public Health, which surveys skilled nursing facilities every six weeks about COVID-19 infection control, to add a question on how facilities were planning for elections. The department declined.
So she set up webinars with facility administrators and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to go over information on how to submit and track absentee ballots.
She has also urged state officials to provide a statewide plan that facilities could use as a blueprint. She wrote one herself that was emailed out by a trade group, the California Association of Health Facilities.
Still, California is in better shape than some other states, said Raúl Macías, a lawyer with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and public policy institute. Elsewhere, residents may have to apply for an absentee ballot, and sometimes must provide a reason they can’t vote in person.
California also has the Voter Bill of Rights, which allows individuals to designate someone to help them fill out and drop off their ballot. In some states, such as North Carolina, assistance can come only from designated bipartisan voting assistance teams, which may be harder to recruit during a pandemic, Macías said.
No matter the state, state and county elections officials and facility administrators should draft voting plans, said Bishop, of the Disabilities Rights Network. It will help staff know the proper way to assist residents without influencing their votes, and residents know their voting rights.
“There is a bit of a gray area on whose responsibility this is,” Bishop said. “It’s one of the years when we start asking ‘Whose responsibility is it?’ Who cares? We have to get it done.”
If they can’t get access to ballots or need help, California residents can contact the state’s long-term care ombudsman program, which can investigate complaints, help them resolve the issue and take the problem to the Department of Public Health if it can’t be fixed.
This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.
Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.
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--2020-10-18--The US Chose Endless War Over Pandemic Preparedness. Now We See the Effects.

The United States has the longest record of war-fighting in modern history .
Why that is the case is not a question that has an easy answer ; suffice to say , however , that militarism and violence run like a red thread throughout U.S. political history , with enormous costs both for the domestic economy and the world at large , as a recently published book by David Vine makes plainly clear .
In fact , the militarist mentality is strongly reinforced by the Trump administration in spite of the fact that the current president claims to have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this exclusive Truthout interview , Vine , a professor of anthropology at American University in Washington , D.C. , addresses critical questions about U.S. war culture and Trump ’ s own contribution to the violence that has always been foundational to U.S. culture .
C.J .
Polychroniou : Your latest book , The United States of War : A Global History of America ’ s Endless Conflicts , from Columbus to the Islamic State , is a detailed survey of the U.S. ’ s obsession with militarism and war .
Have you come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to why the United States has been at war for about 225 of the 243 years since its independence ?
David Vine : There is , of course , no simple answer to this incredibly important question .
According to my research , the U.S. military has been at war or engaged in other combat in all but 11 years of U.S. history — 95 percent of the years the United States has existed .
My book shows how the huge collection of U.S. military bases abroad provides a key — or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the United States has been fighting almost without pause since 1776 .
Bases abroad , bases beyond U.S. borders show how U.S. political , economic and military leaders — shaped by the forces of history , capitalism , racism , patriarchy , nationalism and religion — have used taxpayer money to build a self-perpetuating system of permanent , imperialist war revolving around an often-expanding collection of extraterritorial military bases .
These bases have expanded the boundaries of the United States , while keeping the country locked in a state of nearly continuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political interests of elites and left tens of millions dead , wounded and displaced .
To be clear , my argument is not that U.S. bases abroad are the singular cause of this near-endless fighting .
Indeed , my book shows how the answer to why the U.S. government has fought so constantly lies in the capitalist profit-making desires of businesses and elites , in the electoral interests of politicians , and in the forces of racism , militarized masculinity , nationalism and missionary Christianity , among other dynamics .
U.S. bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key and long overlooked role in the pattern of near-constant U.S. fighting : that is , since independence , bases that U.S. leaders have built beyond the borders of the United States not only have enabled wars but also have made offensive imperialist wars more likely .
While U.S. leaders often portray bases abroad as defensive in nature , the opposite is generally the case : bases built on the territory of other peoples have tended to be offensive in nature , providing a launchpad for yet more wars .
This has tended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abroad have led to wars that have led to the construction of new bases abroad that have led to new wars that have led to new bases and so on .
Can you offer us a quick assessment of the overall costs of the “ global war on terror ?
” It ’ s impossible to capture the immensity of the catastrophe that the so-called “ global war on terror ” has inflicted .
Around 15,000 U.S. military personnel and contractors have died in wars the U.S. government has waged since invading Afghanistan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of troops have returned with amputations , post-traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) , traumatic brain injuries , and other physical and mental damage .
As of 2018 , 1.7 million veterans had reported a wartime disability .
Across the countries where the U.S. military has fought , the death toll is at least 50 times higher than the U.S. death toll : In Afghanistan , Iraq , Syria , Pakistan and Yemen alone , an estimated 755,000 to 786,000 civilians and combatants have died as a result of combat .
Total deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including those who have died as a result of disease , hunger and malnutrition caused by the wars .
Entire neighborhoods , cities and societies have been shattered by these wars .
The number injured and traumatized surely extends into the tens of millions .
At least 37 million people have been displaced from their homes during U.S. fighting in Afghanistan , Iraq , Libya , Pakistan , the Philippines , Somalia , Syria and Yemen .
For perspective , 37 million is about as many people as live in California and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million displaced is more than those displaced by any war anywhere in the world since at least 1900 , with the exception of World War II .
The U.S. government and the United States as a country are not single-handedly responsible for all the death , displacement and destruction of these wars .
Other governments and combatants also bear significant responsibility .
However , the U.S. government bears disproportionate responsibility , especially for the wars it has launched ( Afghanistan , the overlapping war in Pakistan , and Iraq ) , the wars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and the wars in which U.S. forces have been significant combatants ( Yemen , Somalia and the Philippines ) .
Alongside U.S. funding for and involvement in combat in a total of at least 24 countries since 2001 , the rhetoric of the “ war on terror ” alone has also fueled wars and violence worldwide .
Alongside the human damage , the financial costs of the so-called war on terror are so large , they ’ re nearly incomprehensible .
As of October 2020 , the U.S. government has spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion on the post-2001 wars , including the costs of future veterans ’ benefits and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars .
The actual costs are likely to run hundreds of billions or trillions more , depending on when we force our politicians to bring these seemingly endless wars to an end .
While it ’ s incredibly hard to fathom $ 6.4 trillion in taxpayer funds vanished , the catastrophe is compounded when we consider how else the U.S. government could have spent such incredible sums of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done to provide universal health care , to rebuild public schools , to build affordable housing , to end homelessness and hunger , to rebuild crumbling civilian infrastructure , to prepare for pandemics ?
In addition to the 3-4 million who have likely died in the wars the U.S. government has fought since 2001 , how many more have died because of the investments the U.S. government did not make ?
These are questions that , I have to say , should make us weep .
In trying to wrap our minds around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called “ war on terror , ” we also have to remember that this war has also been a catastrophic failure on its own terms : the main result of the “ war on terror ” has been to spread terror and dramatically expand the number of groups and people who would engage in terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens and others civilians worldwide as a political tool .
In Afghanistan , for example , there are at least 10 times as many militant groups today as there were in 2001 .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action is rarely effective in shutting down militant “ terrorist ” groups .
Responding to the attacks of 9/11 with what has now been an endless global war has been one of the most catastrophic and deadly mistakes in world history .
The United States is a violent society and is getting more violent , especially in the age of Trump .
How is this connected to war culture and militarism ?
In short , I would say the United States has always been a profoundly violent country , but that often this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least by some .
In this way , just as Trump ’ s reign has exposed the racism , nativism and misogyny of the United States , Trump has also exposed the violence that has always been foundational — but not inevitable — to the United States .
A full , proper answer to this question would require a book of its own , but I would start by quoting the novelist William Faulkner ’ s words , “ The past is never dead .
It ’ s not even past.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of wars waged by the United States — a history that actually dates to the arrival of Columbus in the Americas and to vicious religious wars waged by Europeans in Europe — has shaped the United States and daily life in the country in profound ways , including in the racist violence that we are seeing increasingly during Trump ’ s reign .
A country ’ s military does not fight in nearly every year of the country ’ s existence in at least 135 foreign lands without this violence shaping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the connections between the past and the present , it ’ s no coincidence that so many of the heavily armed , right-wing , white nationalist militant groups in the United States call themselves militias .
These groups are invoking , and thus help to reveal , the connections between today ’ s violence and the role of organized militias in the imperialist expansion and genocidal colonization carried out by the 13 original U.S. states across North America .
That a growing number of right-wing groups and politicians are increasingly embracing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways is also a reminder of the foundational role of racist violence in U.S. history , from the violence of enslavement built into the U.S. Constitution , to the racist genocide inflicted on Native American peoples by the U.S. Army , state militias and Euro-American settlers , to the racism that has shaped the hundreds of U.S. wars and combat actions pursued beyond today ’ s U.S. borders against peoples who have overwhelmingly been people of color .
We can also see the connections between today ’ s violence and the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns and other firearms in the United States , in the longstanding glorification of war and violence in U.S. popular culture , and in the growing militarization of the police , among many other connections .
Trump ’ s political hypocrisy manifests itself on many fronts , and this includes criticizing generals and weapons manufacturers for the so-called “ endless wars ” and campaigning on a seemingly anti-war platform ( witness the testaments to his aversion at the Republican National Convention ) when he keeps increasing the military budget every consecutive year since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , he established a new branch of the military to oversee all space activities ( Space Force ) in opposition to the Pentagon ’ s top brass .
What ’ s going on here ?
What ’ s Trump ’ s game over defense spending , which is literally out of control ?
Trump ’ s “ game ” is ironically an encouraging sign .
Trump ’ s criticism of generals , weapons manufacturers and the endless wars is indeed a campaign strategy built on his recognition that large majorities in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — certainly to the kinds of large-scale invasions , occupations , and wars seen in Afghanistan and Iraq .
As you said , Trump is a complete hypocrite given the role he has played in continuing the endless wars and ploughing unprecedented sums of money into the military budget and the coffers of the weapons manufacturers .
But his antiwar talk is a sign that much of the country has turned against war , that people across the political spectrum — from the left to anti-imperialist Republicans and libertarians — are demanding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s antiwar talk is a sign that the pursuit of peace and the avoidance of war at all costs is increasingly popular .
It ’ s a sign that the pursuit of peace and the avoidance of war can be and should be the consensus among mainstream politicians of all stripes .
In your view , is there a connection between the amount of money the U.S. pours into its war machine and its inability to deal with the coronavirus pandemic ?
And to what extent are the military ’ s activities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly there is a deep connection between the war machine and the U.S. government ’ s failure to protect the country against COVID .
Trump is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of at least tens of thousands of people , but the responsibility is shared by past presidential administrations and the entire war system .
As others have pointed out , spending $ 6.4 trillion on the “ war on terror ” and trillions more on the annual military budget since 2001 has not protected us from COVID and other pandemics .
Spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money — and the time and energies of millions of Americans — from pandemic preparedness , from a properly robust public health infrastructure , and from the creation of a universal health care system that could have properly cared for the sick .
Beyond the post-2001 period alone , for decades U.S. leaders have built what is effectively a warfare state .
While other wealthy nations have built social welfare states , U.S. politicians and elites have invested in a state dedicated above all to waging war and to preparations for waging war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he called this kind of diversion of funds a “ theft.
” He said , “ Every gun that is made , every warship launched , every rocket fired signifies , in the final sense , a theft from those who hunger and are not fed , those who are cold and are not clothed.
” Today , every gun that is made signifies a theft from those with COVID , from those who might contract COVID , from all of us .
The military ’ s daily activities are also exacerbating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways from spreading the disease among military personnel and endangering people living near U.S. military bases in places such as Okinawa , to continuing wars — in places such as Afghanistan , Syria and Yemen — that are destroying public health infrastructure , causing displacement and generally creating humanitarian disasters that are exacerbating the vulnerability of millions of people to coronavirus .

The United States has the longest record of war-fighting in modern history. Why that is the case is not a question that has an easy answer; suffice to say, however, that militarism and violence run like a red thread throughout U.S. political history, with enormous costs both for the domestic economy and the world at large, as a recently published book by David Vine makes plainly clear. In fact, the militarist mentality is strongly reinforced by the Trump administration in spite of the fact that the current president claims to have an aversion to “endless wars.” In this exclusive Truthout interview, Vine, a professor of anthropology at American University in Washington, D.C., addresses critical questions about U.S. war culture and Trump’s own contribution to the violence that has always been foundational to U.S. culture.
C.J. Polychroniou: Your latest book, The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State, is a detailed survey of the U.S.’s obsession with militarism and war. Have you come to a definite conclusion or explanation as to why the United States has been at war for about 225 of the 243 years since its independence?
David Vine: There is, of course, no simple answer to this incredibly important question. According to my research, the U.S. military has been at war or engaged in other combat in all but 11 years of U.S. history — 95 percent of the years the United States has existed. My book shows how the huge collection of U.S. military bases abroad provides a key — or a kind of lens — to help understand why the United States has been fighting almost without pause since 1776. Bases abroad, bases beyond U.S. borders show how U.S. political, economic and military leaders — shaped by the forces of history, capitalism, racism, patriarchy, nationalism and religion — have used taxpayer money to build a self-perpetuating system of permanent, imperialist war revolving around an often-expanding collection of extraterritorial military bases. These bases have expanded the boundaries of the United States, while keeping the country locked in a state of nearly continuous war that has largely served the economic and political interests of elites and left tens of millions dead, wounded and displaced.
To be clear, my argument is not that U.S. bases abroad are the singular cause of this near-endless fighting. Indeed, my book shows how the answer to why the U.S. government has fought so constantly lies in the capitalist profit-making desires of businesses and elites, in the electoral interests of politicians, and in the forces of racism, militarized masculinity, nationalism and missionary Christianity, among other dynamics.
U.S. bases abroad, however, have played a key and long overlooked role in the pattern of near-constant U.S. fighting: that is, since independence, bases that U.S. leaders have built beyond the borders of the United States not only have enabled wars but also have made offensive imperialist wars more likely. While U.S. leaders often portray bases abroad as defensive in nature, the opposite is generally the case: bases built on the territory of other peoples have tended to be offensive in nature, providing a launchpad for yet more wars. This has tended to create a pattern in which bases abroad have led to wars that have led to the construction of new bases abroad that have led to new wars that have led to new bases and so on.
Can you offer us a quick assessment of the overall costs of the “global war on terror?”
It’s impossible to capture the immensity of the catastrophe that the so-called “global war on terror” has inflicted. Around 15,000 U.S. military personnel and contractors have died in wars the U.S. government has waged since invading Afghanistan in October 2001. Hundreds of thousands of troops have returned with amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injuries, and other physical and mental damage. As of 2018, 1.7 million veterans had reported a wartime disability.
The U.S. military has been at war or engaged in other combat in all but 11 years of U.S. history.
Across the countries where the U.S. military has fought, the death toll is at least 50 times higher than the U.S. death toll: In Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen alone, an estimated 755,000 to 786,000 civilians and combatants have died as a result of combat. Total deaths may reach 3.1-4 million or more, including those who have died as a result of disease, hunger and malnutrition caused by the wars. Entire neighborhoods, cities and societies have been shattered by these wars. The number injured and traumatized surely extends into the tens of millions. At least 37 million people have been displaced from their homes during U.S. fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. For perspective, 37 million is about as many people as live in California and in Texas and Virginia combined. Thirty seven million displaced is more than those displaced by any war anywhere in the world since at least 1900, with the exception of World War II.
The U.S. government and the United States as a country are not single-handedly responsible for all the death, displacement and destruction of these wars. Other governments and combatants also bear significant responsibility. However, the U.S. government bears disproportionate responsibility, especially for the wars it has launched (Afghanistan, the overlapping war in Pakistan, and Iraq), the wars it has escalated (Libya and Syria), and the wars in which U.S. forces have been significant combatants (Yemen, Somalia and the Philippines). Alongside U.S. funding for and involvement in combat in a total of at least 24 countries since 2001, the rhetoric of the “war on terror” alone has also fueled wars and violence worldwide.
Alongside the human damage, the financial costs of the so-called war on terror are so large, they’re nearly incomprehensible. As of October 2020, the U.S. government has spent or obligated a minimum of $6.4 trillion on the post-2001 wars, including the costs of future veterans’ benefits and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars. The actual costs are likely to run hundreds of billions or trillions more, depending on when we force our politicians to bring these seemingly endless wars to an end.
While it’s incredibly hard to fathom $6.4 trillion in taxpayer funds vanished, the catastrophe is compounded when we consider how else the U.S. government could have spent such incredible sums of money. What could these trillions have done to provide universal health care, to rebuild public schools, to build affordable housing, to end homelessness and hunger, to rebuild crumbling civilian infrastructure, to prepare for pandemics? In addition to the 3-4 million who have likely died in the wars the U.S. government has fought since 2001, how many more have died because of the investments the U.S. government did not make? These are questions that, I have to say, should make us weep.
In trying to wrap our minds around the unbelievable human and financial costs of the so-called “war on terror,” we also have to remember that this war has also been a catastrophic failure on its own terms: the main result of the “war on terror” has been to spread terror and dramatically expand the number of groups and people who would engage in terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens and others civilians worldwide as a political tool. In Afghanistan, for example, there are at least 10 times as many militant groups today as there were in 2001. Meanwhile, research has consistently shown that military action is rarely effective in shutting down militant “terrorist” groups. Responding to the attacks of 9/11 with what has now been an endless global war has been one of the most catastrophic and deadly mistakes in world history.
The United States is a violent society and is getting more violent, especially in the age of Trump. How is this connected to war culture and militarism?
Just as Trump’s reign has exposed the racism, nativism and misogyny of the United States, Trump has also exposed the violence that has always been foundational to the United States.
In short, I would say the United States has always been a profoundly violent country, but that often this violence has been obscured or ignored, at least by some. In this way, just as Trump’s reign has exposed the racism, nativism and misogyny of the United States, Trump has also exposed the violence that has always been foundational — but not inevitable — to the United States.
A full, proper answer to this question would require a book of its own, but I would start by quoting the novelist William Faulkner’s words, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Which is to say that the long history of wars waged by the United States — a history that actually dates to the arrival of Columbus in the Americas and to vicious religious wars waged by Europeans in Europe — has shaped the United States and daily life in the country in profound ways, including in the racist violence that we are seeing increasingly during Trump’s reign. A country’s military does not fight in nearly every year of the country’s existence in at least 135 foreign lands without this violence shaping the country profoundly.
To provide one illustration of the connections between the past and the present, it’s no coincidence that so many of the heavily armed, right-wing, white nationalist militant groups in the United States call themselves militias. These groups are invoking, and thus help to reveal, the connections between today’s violence and the role of organized militias in the imperialist expansion and genocidal colonization carried out by the 13 original U.S. states across North America.
That a growing number of right-wing groups and politicians are increasingly embracing the ideology of white supremacy in increasingly explicit ways is also a reminder of the foundational role of racist violence in U.S. history, from the violence of enslavement built into the U.S. Constitution, to the racist genocide inflicted on Native American peoples by the U.S. Army, state militias and Euro-American settlers, to the racism that has shaped the hundreds of U.S. wars and combat actions pursued beyond today’s U.S. borders against peoples who have overwhelmingly been people of color.
We can also see the connections between today’s violence and the history of U.S. wars in the massive number of guns and other firearms in the United States, in the longstanding glorification of war and violence in U.S. popular culture, and in the growing militarization of the police, among many other connections.
Trump’s political hypocrisy manifests itself on many fronts, and this includes criticizing generals and weapons manufacturers for the so-called “endless wars” and campaigning on a seemingly anti-war platform (witness the testaments to his aversion at the Republican National Convention) when he keeps increasing the military budget every consecutive year since he has been in office. In fact, he established a new branch of the military to oversee all space activities (Space Force) in opposition to the Pentagon’s top brass. What’s going on here? What’s Trump’s game over defense spending, which is literally out of control?
Trump’s “game” is ironically an encouraging sign. Trump’s criticism of generals, weapons manufacturers and the endless wars is indeed a campaign strategy built on his recognition that large majorities in the United States are now opposed to war — certainly to the kinds of large-scale invasions, occupations, and wars seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While other wealthy nations have built social welfare states, U.S. politicians and elites have invested in a state dedicated above all to waging war and to preparations for waging war.
As you said, Trump is a complete hypocrite given the role he has played in continuing the endless wars and ploughing unprecedented sums of money into the military budget and the coffers of the weapons manufacturers. But his antiwar talk is a sign that much of the country has turned against war, that people across the political spectrum — from the left to anti-imperialist Republicans and libertarians — are demanding a different approach to foreign policy. Trump’s antiwar talk is a sign that the pursuit of peace and the avoidance of war at all costs is increasingly popular. It’s a sign that the pursuit of peace and the avoidance of war can be and should be the consensus among mainstream politicians of all stripes.
In your view, is there a connection between the amount of money the U.S. pours into its war machine and its inability to deal with the coronavirus pandemic? And to what extent are the military’s activities actually exacerbating the spread of COVID-19?
Clearly there is a deep connection between the war machine and the U.S. government’s failure to protect the country against COVID. Trump is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of at least tens of thousands of people, but the responsibility is shared by past presidential administrations and the entire war system. As others have pointed out, spending $6.4 trillion on the “war on terror” and trillions more on the annual military budget since 2001 has not protected us from COVID and other pandemics. Spending such immense sums on war has stolen money — and the time and energies of millions of Americans — from pandemic preparedness, from a properly robust public health infrastructure, and from the creation of a universal health care system that could have properly cared for the sick.
Beyond the post-2001 period alone, for decades U.S. leaders have built what is effectively a warfare state. While other wealthy nations have built social welfare states, U.S. politicians and elites have invested in a state dedicated above all to waging war and to preparations for waging war.
President Eisenhower was exactly right when he called this kind of diversion of funds a “theft.” He said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Today, every gun that is made signifies a theft from those with COVID, from those who might contract COVID, from all of us.
The military’s daily activities are also exacerbating the spread of COVID in a variety of ways from spreading the disease among military personnel and endangering people living near U.S. military bases in places such as Okinawa, to continuing wars — in places such as Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen — that are destroying public health infrastructure, causing displacement and generally creating humanitarian disasters that are exacerbating the vulnerability of millions of people to coronavirus.
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--2020-10-19--Judge Strikes Down Trump SNAP Rule that Would Remove at Least 700K From Program

A federal judge has struck down a new rule by the Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) that was set to remove food stamps benefits for hundreds of thousands of households .
Noting that the number of Americans applying to receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) , commonly referred to as food stamps , has increased by 17 percent since the coronavirus pandemic began , U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell wrote in her opinion that the rule change proposed by USDA “ radically and abruptly alters decades of regulatory practice , leaving States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of thousands of Americans.
” The rule change was formally proposed by USDA in December 2019 .
It was set to begin on April 1 , but Howell placed an injunction on the new rule to hear legal arguments over whether it should move forward or not after 19 states and Washington , D.C. , sued the USDA .
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the ruling from Howell , calling it “ a win for common sense and basic human decency.
” James added that the rule change “ would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands to feed their families and risk them going hungry , but would have exacerbated the public health crisis we face and the economic recession we are still in the midst of under President [ Donald ] Trump.
” The rule , the department suggested , would have removed around 700,000 from SNAP , although many have argued those numbers would have likely been higher .
Howell herself wrote in her opinion that USDA was “ icily silent ” over the exact amount that would have been denied the benefit .
USDA Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which created stricter limits for who could qualify for benefits , by saying they would “ restore the dignity of work to a sizable segment of our population and be respectful of the taxpayers who fund the program.
” In addition to putting in place tougher guidelines for who could qualify for benefits , the USDA ’ s new rule would have limited states ’ authority to waive those requirements in special circumstances .
Even as the coronavirus pandemic picked up in March of this year , and it became evident more workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Trump administration refused to alter course regarding the rule change , pushing it forward regardless of the uncertain economic futures that many workers were set to face .
As of September , the unemployment rate in the U.S. sits at 7.9 percent , more than double the rate of the year before .
Of those without work right now , 4.6 million are currently temporarily laid off , a lower number than was seen at the height of the crisis in spring but a much higher number than the 800,000 who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Around 3.8 million are currently permanently laid off from their previous work , a number that ’ s a 2.5 million increase versus February .

USDA was planning to go ahead with the rule change, written in December, even after the coronavirus pandemic came about.
A federal judge has struck down a new rule by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) that was set to remove food stamps benefits for hundreds of thousands of households.
Noting that the number of Americans applying to receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps, has increased by 17 percent since the coronavirus pandemic began, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell wrote in her opinion that the rule change proposed by USDA “radically and abruptly alters decades of regulatory practice, leaving States scrambling and exponentially increasing food insecurity for tens of thousands of Americans.”
The rule change was formally proposed by USDA in December 2019. It was set to begin on April 1, but Howell placed an injunction on the new rule to hear legal arguments over whether it should move forward or not after 19 states and Washington, D.C., sued the USDA.
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the ruling from Howell, calling it “a win for common sense and basic human decency.”
James added that the rule change “would have not only made it harder for thousands to feed their families and risk them going hungry, but would have exacerbated the public health crisis we face and the economic recession we are still in the midst of under President [Donald] Trump.”
The rule, the department suggested, would have removed around 700,000 from SNAP, although many have argued those numbers would have likely been higher. Howell herself wrote in her opinion that USDA was “icily silent” over the exact amount that would have been denied the benefit.
USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue had justified the change, which created stricter limits for who could qualify for benefits, by saying they would “restore the dignity of work to a sizable segment of our population and be respectful of the taxpayers who fund the program.”
In addition to putting in place tougher guidelines for who could qualify for benefits, the USDA’s new rule would have limited states’ authority to waive those requirements in special circumstances.
Even as the coronavirus pandemic picked up in March of this year, and it became evident more workers in the U.S. would soon become jobless, the Trump administration refused to alter course regarding the rule change, pushing it forward regardless of the uncertain economic futures that many workers were set to face.
As of September, the unemployment rate in the U.S. sits at 7.9 percent, more than double the rate of the year before. Of those without work right now, 4.6 million are currently temporarily laid off, a lower number than was seen at the height of the crisis in spring but a much higher number than the 800,000 who were temporarily out of work in February. Around 3.8 million are currently permanently laid off from their previous work, a number that’s a 2.5 million increase versus February.
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--2020-10-19--Days Before Debate, Trump Attacks Moderator After Being Advised to Be Nicer

President Donald Trump ’ s campaign advisers are reportedly urging him to approach the final debate of the 2020 presidential election season with a calmer demeanor , but he appears already to be dismissing the strategy by attacking the character of the moderator just days before the debate is set to take place .
Those coaching Trump on how to improve upon his dismal showing at the first debate tell Axios they are advising him to appear more likable this time around .
Trump is being advised not to interrupt his opponent , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
( Biden interrupted Trump 22 times . )
The Trump campaign hopes that the president can turn his prospects around in the final weeks of the election by coming off as more genial .
“ All Trump has to do is give people permission to vote for him.… He did exactly the opposite of that in the first debate , ” one adviser explained to Axios .
“ So hopefully he can right the ship in this one , because his re-election may depend on it.
” Trump is already deviating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeting disparaging comments about the debate ’ s moderator , NBC News ’ s White House correspondent Kristen Welker .
“ She ’ s always been terrible & unfair , just like most of the Fake News reporters , ” Trump said in his social media post over the weekend , “ but I ’ ll still play the game.
” Trump ’ s tweet quoted a tweet from his son , Don Jr. , which cited an article from the New York Post tabloid website that claimed Welker has “ deep Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pundits and political operatives came to Welker ’ s defense .
“ Ask anyone in politics in D.C. , D [ emocrat ] or R [ epublican ] and they ’ ll tell you what a real pro she is , ” wrote Joe Lockhart , who served as press secretary for former President Bill Clinton .
Even individuals within Trump ’ s orbit have made glowing remarks on Welker in the past .
“ I have a very high opinion of Kristen Welker , ” Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller recently said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do an excellent job as the moderator… .
I think she ’ s a journalist who is very fair in her approach .
And I think she ’ ll be a very good choice for this third debate.
” Topics for the third debate announced by Welker late last week include COVID-19 , American families , race in the U.S. , climate change , national security and leadership .
Trump ’ s criticisms of Welker come as the Commission on Presidential Debates ( CPD ) announced it will meet on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final debate .
( The second debate was cancelled . )
What they might alter , however , is unknown , and the CPD may choose to leave the format unchanged .
The CPD attempted to schedule a debate for last week , which was intended to be a town hall-style event , with social distancing rules and remote participation for both candidates , after Trump tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month .
When those changes were announced , however , the president refused to participate , and the two candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different television networks .

Trump’s complaints about debate moderator Kristen Welker comes days after his campaign adviser gave her glowing praise.
President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers are reportedly urging him to approach the final debate of the 2020 presidential election season with a calmer demeanor, but he appears already to be dismissing the strategy by attacking the character of the moderator just days before the debate is set to take place.
Those coaching Trump on how to improve upon his dismal showing at the first debate tell Axios they are advising him to appear more likable this time around. Trump is being advised not to interrupt his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, which he did 71 times during the first debate. (Biden interrupted Trump 22 times.)
The Trump campaign hopes that the president can turn his prospects around in the final weeks of the election by coming off as more genial.
“All Trump has to do is give people permission to vote for him.… He did exactly the opposite of that in the first debate,” one adviser explained to Axios. “So hopefully he can right the ship in this one, because his re-election may depend on it.”
Trump is already deviating from the plan, however, by tweeting disparaging comments about the debate’s moderator, NBC News’s White House correspondent Kristen Welker.
“She’s always been terrible & unfair, just like most of the Fake News reporters,” Trump said in his social media post over the weekend, “but I’ll still play the game.”
Trump’s tweet quoted a tweet from his son, Don Jr., which cited an article from the New York Post tabloid website that claimed Welker has “deep Democrat [sic] ties.”
Several media pundits and political operatives came to Welker’s defense.
“Ask anyone in politics in D.C., D[emocrat] or R[epublican] and they’ll tell you what a real pro she is,” wrote Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary for former President Bill Clinton.
Even individuals within Trump’s orbit have made glowing remarks on Welker in the past.
“I have a very high opinion of Kristen Welker,” Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller recently said. “I think she’s going to do an excellent job as the moderator…. I think she’s a journalist who is very fair in her approach. And I think she’ll be a very good choice for this third debate.”
Topics for the third debate announced by Welker late last week include COVID-19, American families, race in the U.S., climate change, national security and leadership.
Trump’s criticisms of Welker come as the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) announced it will meet on Monday afternoon to discuss potentially changing aspects of the final debate. (The second debate was cancelled.) What they might alter, however, is unknown, and the CPD may choose to leave the format unchanged.
The CPD attempted to schedule a debate for last week, which was intended to be a town hall-style event, with social distancing rules and remote participation for both candidates, after Trump tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month. When those changes were announced, however, the president refused to participate, and the two candidates instead held competing town hall discussions on different television networks.
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--2020-10-19--ExxonMobil’s Supposed Shift on Climate Belies Its Donations to Climate 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.