truthout--2020-12-10--Hanukkah Is About Resistance. Let’s Resist This COVID Spike Through Mutual Aid.

With Hanukkah now upon us , the internet is abuzz with articles offering guidance on how to celebrate the holiday in the age of COVID-19 .
While most of them focus on practical issues such as socially distanced Hanukkah parties and Zoom candle lightings , I ’ ve been thinking a great deal on what the story of Hanukkah might have to offer to all of us as we gear up for a winter like none we ’ ve ever experienced in our lifetimes .
Hanukkah , of course , is based upon the story of the Maccabees , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves from the oppressive reign of the Seleucid Empire in 167 BCE .
The legacy of this story , however , is a complex one because the Jewish struggle against religious persecution took place within the context of a bloody and destructive Jewish civil war .
In contemporary times , the meaning of Hanukkah has become even more complicated given its proximity to Christmas , subjecting it to the uniquely American religion of unmitigated commercialism .
Beyond all these complications , I ’ d argue that the essence of Hanukkah is the theme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hanukkah story commemorates the victorious resistance of the people over the power and might of empire .
On a deeper level , we might say that the festival celebrates the spiritual strength of our resistance to an often harsh and unyielding world .
In this regard , it is significant that Hanukkah takes place in the winter .
Apropos of the season , the festival prescribes resistance to an increasingly colder and darker world by lighting increasing numbers of candles during this eight-night festival .
Those of us who celebrate this holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our windows as an act of “ spiritual defiance , ” directing the light outward into the night where it may clearly be seen by the outside world .
There have indeed been moments in Jewish history in which lighting the menorah was literally an act of resistance .
One powerful example can be seen offered in a single image : the famous photograph taken in 1932 Germany showing a menorah on the window sill of a Jewish home , with a Nazi flag clearly visible across the street .
Another well-known moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after a brick was thrown through the window of a Jewish home in Billings , Montana , scores of citizens showed their solidarity with the Jewish community by taping paper menorahs in their windows .
More recently , on the Hanukkah after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting , one local Jewish leader commented that the menorah is “ not just something that we display in our homes for ourselves … but something we light so that passersby can see .
For us , this year that feels like an act of resistance.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid a winter that medical experts are calling “ the darkest days of the pandemic ” and “ COVID hell.
” In a recent interview , Michael Osterholm , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , said , “ the next three to four months are going to be , by far , the darkest of the pandemic.
” Another expert has predicted that more lives will be lost in December than the U.S. saw in March and April combined .
With such an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , I ’ d suggest that the ideal of Hanukkah resistance is more powerfully relevant than ever .
This resistance , of course , presents us with profound challenges .
After living with the pandemic for the better part of a year , so many throughout the U.S. are succumbing to “ COVID fatigue ” — following months of social isolation and anxiety , increasing numbers of people are becoming less vigilant about the pandemic practice of masking and social distancing , even as infection rates spike precipitously .
With the darkest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — even as we agitate for rent cancellation , eviction resistance and universal health care — we have another form of resistance at our disposal : We can resist government inaction/abandonment of its citizens by participating in the grassroots , self-organized networks of support known as mutual aid .
While these community-based efforts are not new , they have proliferated widely since the onset of the pandemic .
As Jia Tolentino pointed out in a New Yorker article last May : The concept of mutual aid was coined in 1902 by the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mutual aid could be traced to the “ earliest beginnings of evolution.
” Kropotkin posited that solidary provided the human species with the best chance of survival , particularly given the emergence of private property and the rise of the State : Some of the most well-known examples of mutual aid in U.S. history , in fact , were the survival programs created by the Black Panther Party ( BPP ) and the community-based initiatives organized by the Puerto Rican Young Lords Party in the 1960s and ’ 70s .
FBI Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of these mutual aid projects .
In a now infamous internal memo , he wrote that the Black Panther breakfast programs represented “ the best and most influential activity going for the BPP , and is as such , the greatest threat to efforts by authorities.
” Another important aspect of mutual aid is the understanding that disenfranchised people can not ultimately depend on state institutions to save them .
According to Puerto Rican scholar Isa Rodríguez , “ ‘ Solo el pueblo salva al pueblo ’ — ‘ Only the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallying cry for Puerto Ricans following the devastation of Hurricane Maria in 2017 as multiple organizations — mostly based on grassroots groups that existed prior to the hurricane — quickly organized to channel aid.
” The community-based solidarity of mutual aid is also fundamentally different from the approach of private humanitarian charities in which the needy are “ saved ” through the beneficence of those of greater means .
And it must not be viewed through the lens of “ crisis response.
” Mutual aid , rather , is rooted in long-term alliances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As historian/writer , Elizabeth Catte has observed : Since mutual aid is rooted in the ideal of solidarity , the first step for anyone interested is to cultivate genuine and accountable relationships within their own local communities .
This will be undeniably challenging in a time of pandemic , when our mutual safety literally depends upon socially distancing from one another .
Mutual aid projects , however , are adapting to meet these challenges through creative use of commercial internet platforms , online databases and toolkits .
Additionally , mutual aid projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict adherence to public health protocols .
In the words of anarchist organizer Cindy Milstein : “ While ‘ social ’ aka ‘ physical ’ distancing , hand washing , and mask wearing are necessary tools to help stop the spread of this virus , they will only be effective if it ’ s grounded in an ethics and practice of social solidarity and collective care.
” The most famous Hanukkah story says that when the Maccabees entered the Temple to relight the menorah , they only found enough oil to last for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the menorah burned for eight days .
At the core of this seemingly simple parable are profound lessons about the power of sustainability and resilience .
We know from history that popular movements of resistance have the ability to succeed even against the most daunting of foes .
The prospect of the coming winter — and the new year ahead — are undeniably daunting .
Amid it all lie fundamental questions : Where will we find the strength to meet these challenges ?
How will we keep the fire of our commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can we depend upon to see us through the coming season and beyond ?
The resistance embodied by mutual aid provides us with a compelling answer — in the end , we have each other .
As Dean Spade , who recently published a book titled Mutual Aid : Building Solidarity During this Crisis ( and the Next ) , so aptly puts it , “ what happens when people get together to support one another is that people realize that there ’ s more of us than there is of them.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we expect an external human force to somehow show up to save us .
In the end , the true miracle of resistance occurs when we show up for one another .

With Hanukkah now upon us, the internet is abuzz with articles offering guidance on how to celebrate the holiday in the age of COVID-19. While most of them focus on practical issues such as socially distanced Hanukkah parties and Zoom candle lightings, I’ve been thinking a great deal on what the story of Hanukkah might have to offer to all of us as we gear up for a winter like none we’ve ever experienced in our lifetimes.
Hanukkah, of course, is based upon the story of the Maccabees, the small group of Jews who successfully liberated themselves from the oppressive reign of the Seleucid Empire in 167 BCE. The legacy of this story, however, is a complex one because the Jewish struggle against religious persecution took place within the context of a bloody and destructive Jewish civil war. In contemporary times, the meaning of Hanukkah has become even more complicated given its proximity to Christmas, subjecting it to the uniquely American religion of unmitigated commercialism.
Beyond all these complications, I’d argue that the essence of Hanukkah is the theme of resistance. At its core, the Hanukkah story commemorates the victorious resistance of the people over the power and might of empire. On a deeper level, we might say that the festival celebrates the spiritual strength of our resistance to an often harsh and unyielding world.
In this regard, it is significant that Hanukkah takes place in the winter. Apropos of the season, the festival prescribes resistance to an increasingly colder and darker world by lighting increasing numbers of candles during this eight-night festival. Those of us who celebrate this holiday are instructed to place our menorahs in our windows as an act of “spiritual defiance,” directing the light outward into the night where it may clearly be seen by the outside world.
There have indeed been moments in Jewish history in which lighting the menorah was literally an act of resistance. One powerful example can be seen offered in a single image: the famous photograph taken in 1932 Germany showing a menorah on the window sill of a Jewish home, with a Nazi flag clearly visible across the street. Another well-known moment of Hanukkah resistance occurred in 1993 when, after a brick was thrown through the window of a Jewish home in Billings, Montana, scores of citizens showed their solidarity with the Jewish community by taping paper menorahs in their windows. More recently, on the Hanukkah after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, one local Jewish leader commented that the menorah is “not just something that we display in our homes for ourselves … but something we light so that passersby can see. For us, this year that feels like an act of resistance.”
In 2020, we find Hanukkah arriving amid a winter that medical experts are calling “the darkest days of the pandemic” and “COVID hell.” In a recent interview, Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said, “the next three to four months are going to be, by far, the darkest of the pandemic.” Another expert has predicted that more lives will be lost in December than the U.S. saw in March and April combined.
With such an unprecedented and terrifying winter bearing down upon us, I’d suggest that the ideal of Hanukkah resistance is more powerfully relevant than ever. This resistance, of course, presents us with profound challenges. After living with the pandemic for the better part of a year, so many throughout the U.S. are succumbing to “COVID fatigue” — following months of social isolation and anxiety, increasing numbers of people are becoming less vigilant about the pandemic practice of masking and social distancing, even as infection rates spike precipitously.
With the darkest days of the pandemic ahead of us — even as we agitate for rent cancellation, eviction resistance and universal health care — we have another form of resistance at our disposal: We can resist government inaction/abandonment of its citizens by participating in the grassroots, self-organized networks of support known as mutual aid.
While these community-based efforts are not new, they have proliferated widely since the onset of the pandemic. As Jia Tolentino pointed out in a New Yorker article last May:
[Mutual aid] is not a new term, or a new idea, but it has generally existed outside the mainstream. Informal child-care collectives, transgender support groups, and other ad-hoc organizations operate without the top-down leadership or philanthropic funding that most charities depend on. Since COVID, however, mutual aid initiatives seemed to be everywhere.
The concept of mutual aid was coined in 1902 by the Russian anarchist/scientist/economist/philosopher, Peter Kropotkin, who argued that mutual aid could be traced to the “earliest beginnings of evolution.” Kropotkin posited that solidary provided the human species with the best chance of survival, particularly given the emergence of private property and the rise of the State:
It is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience — be it only at the stage of an instinct — of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependence of every one’s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his own. Upon this broad and necessary foundation, the still higher moral feelings are developed.
Some of the most well-known examples of mutual aid in U.S. history, in fact, were the survival programs created by the Black Panther Party (BPP) and the community-based initiatives organized by the Puerto Rican Young Lords Party in the 1960s and ’70s. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself grasped the radical power of these mutual aid projects. In a now infamous internal memo, he wrote that the Black Panther breakfast programs represented “the best and most influential activity going for the BPP, and is as such, the greatest threat to efforts by authorities.”
The true miracle of resistance occurs when we show up for one another.
Another important aspect of mutual aid is the understanding that disenfranchised people cannot ultimately depend on state institutions to save them. According to Puerto Rican scholar Isa Rodríguez, “‘Solo el pueblo salva al pueblo’ — ‘Only the people save the people,’ became a rallying cry for Puerto Ricans following the devastation of Hurricane Maria in 2017 as multiple organizations — mostly based on grassroots groups that existed prior to the hurricane — quickly organized to channel aid.”
The community-based solidarity of mutual aid is also fundamentally different from the approach of private humanitarian charities in which the needy are “saved” through the beneficence of those of greater means. And it must not be viewed through the lens of “crisis response.” Mutual aid, rather, is rooted in long-term alliances between people engaged in a common struggle. As historian/writer, Elizabeth Catte has observed:
Mutual aid can be a form of resistance, but the practice itself requires discipline. We can’t do it because it helps us sugarcoat our trauma, or because it lets us say we have claimed goodness in a world where it is often lacking. Mutual aid is incompatible with charity and should offer no pleasure to the well-resourced person or do-gooder who hopes to find worthy recipients of their kindness, because the practice of mutual aid is intended to destroy categories of worth.
Since mutual aid is rooted in the ideal of solidarity, the first step for anyone interested is to cultivate genuine and accountable relationships within their own local communities. This will be undeniably challenging in a time of pandemic, when our mutual safety literally depends upon socially distancing from one another.
Mutual aid projects, however, are adapting to meet these challenges through creative use of commercial internet platforms, online databases and toolkits. Additionally, mutual aid projects in the age of COVID insist on strict adherence to public health protocols.
In the words of anarchist organizer Cindy Milstein: “While ‘social’ aka ‘physical’ distancing, hand washing, and mask wearing are necessary tools to help stop the spread of this virus, they will only be effective if it’s grounded in an ethics and practice of social solidarity and collective care.”
The most famous Hanukkah story says that when the Maccabees entered the Temple to relight the menorah, they only found enough oil to last for one day. Miraculously, however, the menorah burned for eight days. At the core of this seemingly simple parable are profound lessons about the power of sustainability and resilience. We know from history that popular movements of resistance have the ability to succeed even against the most daunting of foes.
The prospect of the coming winter — and the new year ahead — are undeniably daunting. Amid it all lie fundamental questions: Where will we find the strength to meet these challenges? How will we keep the fire of our commitment to each other from burning out? Who can we depend upon to see us through the coming season and beyond?
The resistance embodied by mutual aid provides us with a compelling answer — in the end, we have each other. As Dean Spade, who recently published a book titled Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During this Crisis (and the Next), so aptly puts it, “what happens when people get together to support one another is that people realize that there’s more of us than there is of them.”
True resistance can never occur as long as we expect an external human force to somehow show up to save us. In the end, the true miracle of resistance occurs when we show up for one another.
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--2020-12-10--Biden to Visit Georgia to Campaign for Senate Runoff Candidates

President-elect Joe Biden will travel to Georgia next week in order to campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates in the state ’ s two Senate runoff elections taking place next month .
Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are running against incumbent Republican Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler , respectively , in runoff elections on January 5 .
Biden defeated Trump in Georgia by a margin of over 12,000 votes , according to the most recent election numbers , becoming the first Democrat to win the state in a presidential race since 1992 .
The president-elect ’ s plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second time that he has left his home state of Delaware since he was declared the winner of the election .
Biden has limited his travels out of precaution for coronavirus , leaving just once to travel to Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , for Veterans Day services .
Biden ’ s visit , according to reporting from Politico , is set to take place on December 15 — exactly 6 weeks after Election Day .
Biden ’ s influence in the state will likely help turn out the vote for the Democratic Party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ makeup of the United States Senate — and whether Republicans or Democrats will be in control of the “ upper chamber ” of Congress when it convenes next year .
Both Ossoff and Warnock have to win their respective races for there to be a 50-50 split in the Senate , after which Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will become the tie-breaking vote in the chamber , in her constitutional role as president of the Senate .
While Biden ’ s presence will likely be embraced by the Democratic candidates , the same couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump came to Georgia last weekend to campaign for the Republicans .
Trump is effective at generating his base to act , but some Republican insiders in the state saw his comments about the election that took place last month , including his errant insistence that Georgia ’ s elections were rife with fraud , as possibly doing more harm than good for their cause .
Those Republican voices believe that such rhetoric will dampen voter enthusiasm , resulting in fewer votes for their candidates , and possibly delivering a win for Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supporters may view such an election as pointless if they can not trust the voting process .
Some allies of the president have even insisted that GOP voters in Georgia boycott the runoff elections entirely unless significant changes are made before they take place .
Concerns over Republican voter enthusiasm , however , did not stop Trump from continuing to peddle his baseless fraud claims in Georgia last weekend .
“ If I lost , I would be a very gracious loser .
But you can ’ t even accept when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said during a rally in the state last Saturday .
While the concerns of driving voters away are real , Loeffler and Perdue may have calculated that going against Trump on the topic is more damaging to their prospects .
Just this past week , both Republican candidates joined in support of a lawsuit from Texas seeking to toss out votes in Georgia and in three other states , and to allow the Republican-controlled legislatures from those states to pick representatives for the Electoral College instead — a move that would hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts largely agree that the lawsuit in question does not have much of a chance to be heard by the Supreme Court , let alone be won , if the High Court agrees to hear the case at all .
Polling on both runoff races currently shows a slight advantage for Democrats .

The appearance by Biden will be the second time since he won the election that he’s left his home state of Delaware.
President-elect Joe Biden will travel to Georgia next week in order to campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates in the state’s two Senate runoff elections taking place next month.
Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are running against incumbent Republican Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, respectively, in runoff elections on January 5.
Biden defeated Trump in Georgia by a margin of over 12,000 votes, according to the most recent election numbers, becoming the first Democrat to win the state in a presidential race since 1992.
The president-elect’s plans to visit the state will be just the second time that he has left his home state of Delaware since he was declared the winner of the election. Biden has limited his travels out of precaution for coronavirus, leaving just once to travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Veterans Day services.
Biden’s visit, according to reporting from Politico, is set to take place on December 15 — exactly 6 weeks after Election Day.
Biden’s influence in the state will likely help turn out the vote for the Democratic Party. The two senatorial races will determine the makeup of the United States Senate — and whether Republicans or Democrats will be in control of the “upper chamber” of Congress when it convenes next year.
Both Ossoff and Warnock have to win their respective races for there to be a 50-50 split in the Senate, after which Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will become the tie-breaking vote in the chamber, in her constitutional role as president of the Senate.
While Biden’s presence will likely be embraced by the Democratic candidates, the same couldn’t be said when President Donald Trump came to Georgia last weekend to campaign for the Republicans. Trump is effective at generating his base to act, but some Republican insiders in the state saw his comments about the election that took place last month, including his errant insistence that Georgia’s elections were rife with fraud, as possibly doing more harm than good for their cause.
Those Republican voices believe that such rhetoric will dampen voter enthusiasm, resulting in fewer votes for their candidates, and possibly delivering a win for Democrats, as the president’s base of supporters may view such an election as pointless if they cannot trust the voting process. Some allies of the president have even insisted that GOP voters in Georgia boycott the runoff elections entirely unless significant changes are made before they take place.
Concerns over Republican voter enthusiasm, however, did not stop Trump from continuing to peddle his baseless fraud claims in Georgia last weekend.
“If I lost, I would be a very gracious loser. But you can’t even accept when they steal and rig and rob,” Trump said during a rally in the state last Saturday.
While the concerns of driving voters away are real, Loeffler and Perdue may have calculated that going against Trump on the topic is more damaging to their prospects. Just this past week, both Republican candidates joined in support of a lawsuit from Texas seeking to toss out votes in Georgia and in three other states, and to allow the Republican-controlled legislatures from those states to pick representatives for the Electoral College instead — a move that would hand the 2020 election to Trump.
Legal experts largely agree that the lawsuit in question does not have much of a chance to be heard by the Supreme Court, let alone be won, if the High Court agrees to hear the case at all.
Polling on both runoff races currently shows a slight advantage for Democrats.
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--2020-12-10--Giuliani Brags “Celebrity” Status Helped Him Get Trump’s Special COVID Treatment

Rudy Giuliani , the former mayor of New York City and the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump , openly bragged during a radio interview this week that he received specialized medical care for his coronavirus diagnosis , and that his “ celebrity ” status helped secure him the exceptional treatment .
While speaking in an interview with WABC , Giuliani said that he was treated with at least two of the same drugs that Trump received in early October , when the president was hospitalized for COVID-19 at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center .
“ If it wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have been put in a hospital frankly , ” Giuliani candidly said during the interview .
“ Sometimes when you ’ re a celebrity , they ’ re worried if something happens to you they ’ re going to examine it more carefully , and do everything right.
” Giuliani left the hospital on Wednesday evening , four days after he was admitted for care after his COVID-19 diagnosis .
Guiliani is the latest member of Trump ’ s inner-circle who was infected with COVID-19 and received medical treatment that lies out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Besides Giuliani and Trump , former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie and current Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson , both Trump loyalists , also received the same special concoction of medicines that appears to help treat the virus .
The two types of treatments given to Trump and his allies include “ a monoclonal antibody developed by Eli Lilly and a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies developed by Regeneron , ” according to reporting from The New York Times .
The treatment plans received emergency use authorization ( EUA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FDA ) last month to be used for patients with “ mild to moderate ” symptoms but who are at high risk .
However , as new daily cases of the virus continue to increase at an alarming rate , the EUA treatment plan offered to Trump and his allies is becoming less accessible for the average person .
In some cases , hospitals have had to resort to a lottery system to determine which patients can receive them .
Trump has used his personalized and specialized treatment for COVID-19 to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry about contracting the virus .
After receiving his world-class care at Walter Reed two months ago , Trump shared a video on social media telling Americans to overcome their fears about coronavirus .
“ Don ’ t let [ coronavirus ] dominate you .
Don ’ t be afraid of it .
You ’ re going to beat it , ” Trump said .
The following day , Trump shared a tweet about his hospital stay , inappropriately comparing coronavirus to the flu ( even though in private he has admitted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Many people every year , sometimes over 100,000 , and despite the Vaccine , die from the Flu , ” Trump wrote in his highly misleading tweet , which Twitter put a fact-check on .
“ Are we going to close down our Country ?
No , we have learned to live with it , just like we are learning to live with Covid , in most populations far less lethal !
!
!
” Since October 5 , when Trump said that patients across the U.S. were going to “ beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died from the virus .
As of December 9 , nearly 290,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 , with the past seven days seeing 2,288 deaths per day , on average — a rate that is more than three times higher than the average at the time when Trump shared a video telling people not to fear the virus .

The treatment plan is so scarce that some hospitals have had “lotteries” to determine which patients can get them.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, openly bragged during a radio interview this week that he received specialized medical care for his coronavirus diagnosis, and that his “celebrity” status helped secure him the exceptional treatment.
While speaking in an interview with WABC, Giuliani said that he was treated with at least two of the same drugs that Trump received in early October, when the president was hospitalized for COVID-19 at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
“If it wasn’t me, I wouldn’t have been put in a hospital frankly,” Giuliani candidly said during the interview. “Sometimes when you’re a celebrity, they’re worried if something happens to you they’re going to examine it more carefully, and do everything right.”
Giuliani left the hospital on Wednesday evening, four days after he was admitted for care after his COVID-19 diagnosis.
Guiliani is the latest member of Trump’s inner-circle who was infected with COVID-19 and received medical treatment that lies out of reach of the average coronavirus patient. Besides Giuliani and Trump, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and current Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, both Trump loyalists, also received the same special concoction of medicines that appears to help treat the virus.
The two types of treatments given to Trump and his allies include “a monoclonal antibody developed by Eli Lilly and a cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies developed by Regeneron,” according to reporting from The New York Times. The treatment plans received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month to be used for patients with “mild to moderate” symptoms but who are at high risk.
However, as new daily cases of the virus continue to increase at an alarming rate, the EUA treatment plan offered to Trump and his allies is becoming less accessible for the average person. In some cases, hospitals have had to resort to a lottery system to determine which patients can receive them.
Trump has used his personalized and specialized treatment for COVID-19 to tell the public that it shouldn’t worry about contracting the virus. After receiving his world-class care at Walter Reed two months ago, Trump shared a video on social media telling Americans to overcome their fears about coronavirus.
“Don’t let [coronavirus] dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it. You’re going to beat it,” Trump said.
The following day, Trump shared a tweet about his hospital stay, inappropriately comparing coronavirus to the flu (even though in private he has admitted that COVID-19 is deadlier than influenza).
“Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu,” Trump wrote in his highly misleading tweet, which Twitter put a fact-check on. “Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!”
Since October 5, when Trump said that patients across the U.S. were going to “beat” coronavirus, more than 78,000 have died from the virus. As of December 9, nearly 290,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, with the past seven days seeing 2,288 deaths per day, on average — a rate that is more than three times higher than the average at the time when Trump shared a video telling people not to fear the virus.
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--2020-12-10--Trump Warned Georgia AG Not to Recruit Other Officials to Oppose Texas Lawsuit

President Donald Trump warned Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr on Tuesday to avoid rallying Republicans against a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the electoral outcomes in four states which Trump lost in the 2020 election .
Carr , himself a Republican , voiced stern opposition to the lawsuit , which argues that election rule changes made in consideration for the coronavirus pandemic in four states — Georgia , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Michigan — were in violation of federal law .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , who submitted the lawsuit directly to the United States Supreme Court , argued in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those changes led to widespread voter fraud which affected the outcome of the presidential race .
“ With all due respect , the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally , legally and factually wrong about Georgia , ” Carr said in response to the filing .
Following those comments by the Georgia attorney general , Trump expressed his discontent with Carr during phone call conversations to Georgia ’ s two Republican Senators , Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue , according to reporting from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution .
Two sources who were knowledgeable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” while speaking to Loeffler .
Perdue urged Trump to speak to Carr directly , which the president reportedly did .
According to another source who was part of that call , the conversation was “ cordial , ” with Trump warning Carr not to persuade Republican officials from other states to oppose the Texas lawsuit .
Carr told Trump he hadn ’ t done that .
The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the election results in those four states , which favored Democratic President-elect Joe Biden , and to instead allow their respective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican-controlled — to award their collective 62 Electoral College votes to the candidate of their choice .
At the same time , while Trump is trying to quell Republican opposition to Paxton ’ s legal filing , he has openly celebrated the fact that other state GOP officials have come out in support of it .
On Wednesday evening , Trump gleefully tweeted about the fact that 17 other states had “ joined Texas in the extraordinary case.
” Trump has described the case brought forward by Paxton as “ the big one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to throw out the results and pave a path forward for Trump to win the 2020 presidential election .
However , a number of legal scholars are skeptical that the Supreme Court will even take up the case , noting that dozens of similar challenges in courtrooms across the country , filed by the Trump campaign and the president ’ s allies , have failed at every turn .
“ The merits are so outrageous in these claims that even the most avid Trump judges on the federal bench are laughing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the co-director of the election law program at William & Mary Law School , said while speaking to USA Today about the matter .
“ I don ’ t see any reason why his judges on the Supreme Court wouldn ’ t be forced into that same position.
” “ This case is hopeless , ” SCOTUSBlog publisher Tom Goldstein also said .
“ Texas has no right to bring a lawsuit over election procedures in other states.
” Much of the lawsuit Paxton submitted is riddled with hypocritical complaints .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that the changes in election rules have led to situations where votes received after Election Day were counted — yet in five of the states that have signed onto Paxton ’ s lawsuit , the counting of absentee votes received after Election Day is legal .
Texas includes ballots received one day after the election in their official counts .
The suggestion by Paxton that changes to election rules led to widespread fraud , besides being unsubstantiated , is again hypocritical for the Texas attorney general to complain over , as Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules to accommodate voters worried about the pandemic .
Biden defeated Trump in the popular vote across the United States by a margin of more than 7 million votes .
In the Electoral College , Biden won with 306 electoral votes against Trump ’ s 232 .

Many experts say there’s almost zero chance the Supreme Court will take up the legal challenge.
President Donald Trump warned Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr on Tuesday to avoid rallying Republicans against a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the electoral outcomes in four states which Trump lost in the 2020 election.
Carr, himself a Republican, voiced stern opposition to the lawsuit, which argues that election rule changes made in consideration for the coronavirus pandemic in four states — Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — were in violation of federal law.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who submitted the lawsuit directly to the United States Supreme Court, argued in his filing, without providing evidence, that those changes led to widespread voter fraud which affected the outcome of the presidential race.
“With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” Carr said in response to the filing.
Following those comments by the Georgia attorney general, Trump expressed his discontent with Carr during phone call conversations to Georgia’s two Republican Senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, according to reporting from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Two sources who were knowledgeable of those calls described Trump as “furious” while speaking to Loeffler.
Perdue urged Trump to speak to Carr directly, which the president reportedly did. According to another source who was part of that call, the conversation was “cordial,” with Trump warning Carr not to persuade Republican officials from other states to oppose the Texas lawsuit. Carr told Trump he hadn’t done that.
The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the election results in those four states, which favored Democratic President-elect Joe Biden, and to instead allow their respective state legislatures — all of which are Republican-controlled — to award their collective 62 Electoral College votes to the candidate of their choice.
At the same time, while Trump is trying to quell Republican opposition to Paxton’s legal filing, he has openly celebrated the fact that other state GOP officials have come out in support of it. On Wednesday evening, Trump gleefully tweeted about the fact that 17 other states had “joined Texas in the extraordinary case.”
Trump has described the case brought forward by Paxton as “the big one” — the legal action that is needed to throw out the results and pave a path forward for Trump to win the 2020 presidential election. However, a number of legal scholars are skeptical that the Supreme Court will even take up the case, noting that dozens of similar challenges in courtrooms across the country, filed by the Trump campaign and the president’s allies, have failed at every turn.
“The merits are so outrageous in these claims that even the most avid Trump judges on the federal bench are laughing them out of court,” Rebecca Green, the co-director of the election law program at William & Mary Law School, said while speaking to USA Today about the matter. “I don’t see any reason why his judges on the Supreme Court wouldn’t be forced into that same position.”
“This case is hopeless,” SCOTUSBlog publisher Tom Goldstein also said. “Texas has no right to bring a lawsuit over election procedures in other states.”
Much of the lawsuit Paxton submitted is riddled with hypocritical complaints. The suit put forward, for example, suggests that the changes in election rules have led to situations where votes received after Election Day were counted — yet in five of the states that have signed onto Paxton’s lawsuit, the counting of absentee votes received after Election Day is legal. Texas includes ballots received one day after the election in their official counts.
The suggestion by Paxton that changes to election rules led to widespread fraud, besides being unsubstantiated, is again hypocritical for the Texas attorney general to complain over, as Texas itself also implemented a few new election rules to accommodate voters worried about the pandemic.
Biden defeated Trump in the popular vote across the United States by a margin of more than 7 million votes. In the Electoral College, Biden won with 306 electoral votes against Trump’s 232.
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--2020-12-10--SCOTUS Should Spurn Latest Texas Push to Flip Election. Will It?

If this whole grinding post-election drama is all just an elaborate troll on Donald Trump ’ s part , a fundraiser aimed at fleecing his base even as he “ owns the libs ” by keeping everyone constantly on edge , it is already a bleak masterpiece .
The judiciary to date has served as guard rails for his nonsense quest to overturn the 2020 presidential election .
Now that the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has been roped into the affair for the second time in a week , however , we are all of a sudden playing with live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silly no more .
At about the same time as that court was swatting Pennsylvania ’ s ludicrous election-flip argument out of the building , the attorney general of Texas was serving up a new legal complaint so freighted with inadequacies that it bends the very light .
AG Ken Paxton — himself under indictment — has brought directly to the high court a suit against the election results in Michigan , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin and Georgia , claiming that measures taken by these pivotal battleground states to allow voting during a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one a tick .
A president whose crashing incompetence , negligence , vanity and fear allowed the COVID-19 pandemic to eat the country now has a minion arguing that the very basic and entirely legal steps taken to defend democracy against the calamity he caused are , in fact , illegal .
More to the point , a “ states rights ” Texas Republican is asking that court to meddle in the most fundamental duties of the four named states .
Benjamin Ginsberg , the Darth Vader of Republican election lawyers , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election recount fiasco , finds the entire premise almost unspeakably absurd .
“ I can ’ t imagine something that is less faithful to the principle of states ’ rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections , ” he told CNN .
Paxton ’ s little SCOTUS enterprise is marred with flaws before you even open the complaint .
No other court — state or federal — has been afforded a say on Paxton ’ s “ arguments.
” To accept the case on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agree that the issues being presented can not be resolved by any lower courts .
To say this is a leap is to call the Grand Canyon a pothole .
“ There ’ s nothing unique about Texas ’ claims here , most of which have already been brought in other suits against the same four states , ” University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck informed CNN .
These are not the only logs in Trump ’ s road to the Supreme Court .
As of today , all 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes from the 2020 presidential election .
Those results now reside in a legal “ safe harbor ” which protects them from rogue states — and yes , we are now using that phrase to describe 17 different parts of this very country — attempting to overturn the will of the people .
Now that this deadline has passed , it would be extraordinary and unprecedented for any court to intervene .
Not to be deterred by quaint legal notions like precedent and , well , bedrock legal principle , Republican governors from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Florida , Indiana , Kansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nebraska , North Dakota , Oklahoma , South Carolina , South Dakota , Tennessee , Utah and West Virginia — have dogpiled Paxton ’ s petition .
More importantly , Donald Trump has hitched his wagon to Paxton ’ s bleary star .
On Wednesday , he asserted that Paxton ’ s case was “ the big one ” that “ everyone has been waiting for.
” In this , Trump is correct : Everyone is waiting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The justices threw back his Pennsylvania petition this week without even deigning to comment , and a vast plurality of legal experts agree that something similar will take place with this Texas case , the crowd of co-sponsors notwithstanding .
It is a Hail Mary legal argument , lofted on a wing and a prayer in hopes that someone in the Supreme Court chamber will come down with the ball .
Thirty-six years ago nearly to the day , I was watching college football in a bad mood .
Ronald Reagan had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even in my youth I knew it was grim tidings .
My household needed a smile , and the game that day gave us one : Boston College vs. Miami , the Hurricanes heavily favored over itty little BC and its bitty little quarterback , Doug Flutie .
It ended with Flutie dropping a towering last-second Hail Mary pass — “ 55 Flood Tip ” was the play call — into the waiting arms of his roommate , Gerard Phelan , in one of the more preposterous endings in the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few blocks away from the BC campus , and when Phelan came down with that ball , the whole neighborhood — cars , trees , houses , sidewalks — leaped three feet into the air .
It was a gloriously impossible ending that will live forever in college football lore .
This moment was special because Hail Mary passes only rarely work , and upon failure come to represent the desperation of the pass-tossing losing team in its defeat .
Paxton , Trump and those 17 states have chucked up the mother of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ’ s end zone .
It seems highly implausible that the court will even agree to hear the case , much less choose to support the petition .
Here ’ s the thing , though : Phelan came down with the goddamn ball .
Amid a forest of defending arms and in defiance of physics he came down with it and Boston College walked off the field that night a winner .
Trump has called a 55 Flood Tip , the ball is in the air , and if it all wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cruz of all people has been tasked to go catch it .
By all that is normal and true , this last-gasp pass should bounce harmlessly away , but 2020 has taught us a great deal about the power of the horrifically impossible to become flesh-and-bone real .
We may hear the court ’ s decision as soon as tomorrow .
Stay tuned , and stout hearts .

If this whole grinding post-election drama is all just an elaborate troll on Donald Trump’s part, a fundraiser aimed at fleecing his base even as he “owns the libs” by keeping everyone constantly on edge, it is already a bleak masterpiece. The judiciary to date has served as guard rails for his nonsense quest to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Now that the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has been roped into the affair for the second time in a week, however, we are all of a sudden playing with live ammunition and it ain’t so silly no more.
At about the same time as that court was swatting Pennsylvania’s ludicrous election-flip argument out of the building, the attorney general of Texas was serving up a new legal complaint so freighted with inadequacies that it bends the very light. AG Ken Paxton — himself under indictment — has brought directly to the high court a suit against the election results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia, claiming that measures taken by these pivotal battleground states to allow voting during a pandemic invalidates the entire enterprise.
Mull that one a tick. A president whose crashing incompetence, negligence, vanity and fear allowed the COVID-19 pandemic to eat the country now has a minion arguing that the very basic and entirely legal steps taken to defend democracy against the calamity he caused are, in fact, illegal. More to the point, a “states rights” Texas Republican is asking that court to meddle in the most fundamental duties of the four named states.
Benjamin Ginsberg, the Darth Vader of Republican election lawyers, whose heavy hand held sway during the 2000 election recount fiasco, finds the entire premise almost unspeakably absurd. “I can’t imagine something that is less faithful to the principle of states’ rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections,” he told CNN.
Paxton’s little SCOTUS enterprise is marred with flaws before you even open the complaint. No other court — state or federal — has been afforded a say on Paxton’s “arguments.” To accept the case on the merits, the justices would have to agree that the issues being presented cannot be resolved by any lower courts.
To say this is a leap is to call the Grand Canyon a pothole. “There’s nothing unique about Texas’ claims here, most of which have already been brought in other suits against the same four states,” University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck informed CNN.
These are not the only logs in Trump’s road to the Supreme Court. As of today, all 50 states have certified the results of their votes from the 2020 presidential election. Those results now reside in a legal “safe harbor” which protects them from rogue states — and yes, we are now using that phrase to describe 17 different parts of this very country — attempting to overturn the will of the people. Now that this deadline has passed, it would be extraordinary and unprecedented for any court to intervene.
Not to be deterred by quaint legal notions like precedent and, well, bedrock legal principle, Republican officials from some 17 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia — have dogpiled Paxton’s petition. More importantly, Donald Trump has hitched his wagon to Paxton’s bleary star. On Wednesday, he asserted that Paxton’s case was “the big one” that “everyone has been waiting for.”
The justices threw back his Pennsylvania petition this week without even deigning to comment, and a vast plurality of legal experts agree that something similar will take place with this Texas case.
In this, Trump is correct: Everyone is waiting to see what the high court will do. The justices threw back his Pennsylvania petition this week without even deigning to comment, and a vast plurality of legal experts agree that something similar will take place with this Texas case, the crowd of co-sponsors notwithstanding. It is a Hail Mary legal argument, lofted on a wing and a prayer in hopes that someone in the Supreme Court chamber will come down with the ball.
Thirty-six years ago nearly to the day, I was watching college football in a bad mood. Ronald Reagan had just been re-elected in a punishing landslide, and even in my youth I knew it was grim tidings. My household needed a smile, and the game that day gave us one: Boston College vs. Miami, the Hurricanes heavily favored over itty little BC and its bitty little quarterback, Doug Flutie.
It ended with Flutie dropping a towering last-second Hail Mary pass — “55 Flood Tip” was the play call — into the waiting arms of his roommate, Gerard Phelan, in one of the more preposterous endings in the history of organized sport. I lived a few blocks away from the BC campus, and when Phelan came down with that ball, the whole neighborhood — cars, trees, houses, sidewalks — leaped three feet into the air. It was a gloriously impossible ending that will live forever in college football lore.
This moment was special because Hail Mary passes only rarely work, and upon failure come to represent the desperation of the pass-tossing losing team in its defeat. Paxton, Trump and those 17 states have chucked up the mother of all Hail Mary passes toward the Supreme Court’s end zone. It seems highly implausible that the court will even agree to hear the case, much less choose to support the petition.
Here’s the thing, though: Phelan came down with the goddamn ball. Amid a forest of defending arms and in defiance of physics he came down with it and Boston College walked off the field that night a winner.
Trump has called a 55 Flood Tip, the ball is in the air, and if it all wasn’t strange enough already, Ted Cruz of all people has been tasked to go catch it. By all that is normal and true, this last-gasp pass should bounce harmlessly away, but 2020 has taught us a great deal about the power of the horrifically impossible to become flesh-and-bone real. We may hear the court’s decision as soon as tomorrow. Stay tuned, and stout hearts.
This article has been updated.
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--2020-12-10--Hunger Pandemic Will Surpass COVID Impact, Warns World Food Programme

AMY GOODMAN : Just before our live broadcast today , the World Food Programme received the Nobel Peace Prize in an online ceremony , due to COVID-19 restrictions , for what the Nobel Committee described as “ its efforts to combat hunger , for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict , ” unquote .
The World Food Programme is the world ’ s largest humanitarian organization dealing with hunger and food security .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict , climate crisis and COVID-19 could push 270 million people to the brink of starvation .
The executive director , the former South Carolina Governor David Beasley , accepted this year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome .
DAVID BEASLEY : On behalf of the secretary-general of the United Nations , António Guterres , our board , our sister agencies , our incredible partners and donors , and on behalf of 19,000 peacemakers at the World Food Programme , including those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died in the line of duty and their families who carry on , and on behalf of the 100 million people we serve , to the Norwegian Nobel Committee , thank you for this great honor .
Also , thank you for acknowledging our work of using food to combat hunger , to mitigate against destabilization of nations , to prevent mass migration , to end conflict and to create stability and peace .
We believe food is the pathway to peace .
I wish today that I could speak of how , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all the 690 million people who go to bed hungry every night , but today we have a crisis at hand .
This Nobel Peace Prize is more than a thank you ; it is a call to action .
Because of so many wars , climate change , the widespread use of hunger as a political and military weapon , and a global health pandemic that makes all of that exponentially worse , 270 million people are marching toward starvation .
Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if that ’ s not bad enough , out of that 270 million , 30 million depend on us 100 % for their survival .
How will humanity respond ?
What tears me up inside is this .
This coming year , millions and millions and millions of my equals , my neighbors , your neighbors , are marching to the brink of starvation .
We stand at what may be the most ironic moment in modern history .
On the one hand , after a century of massive strides in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million of our neighbors are on the brink of starvation .
That ’ s more than the entire population of Western Europe .
On the other hand , there is $ 400 trillion of wealth in our world today .
Even at the height of the COVID pandemic , in just 90 days , an additional [ $ 2.7 ] trillion of wealth was created .
And we only need $ 5 billion to save 30 million lives from famine .
What am I missing here ?
A lot of my friends and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , “ You ’ ve got the greatest job in the world , saving the lives of millions of people.
” Well , here ’ s what I tell them : I don ’ t go to bed at night thinking about the children we saved ; I go to bed weeping over the children we could not save .
And when we don ’ t have enough money nor the access we need , we have to decide which children eat and which children do not eat , which children live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you like that job ?
Please , don ’ t ask us to choose who lives and who dies .
In the spirit of Alfred Nobel , as inscribed on this medal , “ peace and brotherhood , ” let ’ s feed them all .
Food is the pathway to peace .

The World Food Programme, the world’s largest humanitarian organization dealing with hunger and food security, accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today, with its executive director David Beasley warning that the combination of conflict, climate crisis and COVID-19 could push 270 million people to the brink of starvation. In his acceptance speech, Beasley said, “Because of so many wars, climate change, the widespread use of hunger as a political and military weapon, and a global health pandemic that makes all of that exponentially worse, 270 million people are marching toward starvation. Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic which will dwarf the impact of COVID.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Just before our live broadcast today, the World Food Programme received the Nobel Peace Prize in an online ceremony, due to COVID-19 restrictions, for what the Nobel Committee described as “its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict,” unquote.
The World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization dealing with hunger and food security. It’s now warning the combination of conflict, climate crisis and COVID-19 could push 270 million people to the brink of starvation.
The executive director, the former South Carolina Governor David Beasley, accepted this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome.
DAVID BEASLEY: On behalf of the secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres, our board, our sister agencies, our incredible partners and donors, and on behalf of 19,000 peacemakers at the World Food Programme, including those who came before us and especially those who died in the line of duty and their families who carry on, and on behalf of the 100 million people we serve, to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, thank you for this great honor. Also, thank you for acknowledging our work of using food to combat hunger, to mitigate against destabilization of nations, to prevent mass migration, to end conflict and to create stability and peace. We believe food is the pathway to peace. I wish today that I could speak of how, working together, we could end hunger for all the 690 million people who go to bed hungry every night, but today we have a crisis at hand. This Nobel Peace Prize is more than a thank you; it is a call to action. Because of so many wars, climate change, the widespread use of hunger as a political and military weapon, and a global health pandemic that makes all of that exponentially worse, 270 million people are marching toward starvation. Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic which will dwarf the impact of COVID. And if that’s not bad enough, out of that 270 million, 30 million depend on us 100% for their survival. How will humanity respond? What tears me up inside is this. This coming year, millions and millions and millions of my equals, my neighbors, your neighbors, are marching to the brink of starvation. We stand at what may be the most ironic moment in modern history. On the one hand, after a century of massive strides in eliminating extreme poverty, today those 200 million of our neighbors are on the brink of starvation. That’s more than the entire population of Western Europe. On the other hand, there is $400 trillion of wealth in our world today. Even at the height of the COVID pandemic, in just 90 days, an additional [$2.7] trillion of wealth was created. And we only need $5 billion to save 30 million lives from famine. What am I missing here? A lot of my friends and leaders around the world have said to me, “You’ve got the greatest job in the world, saving the lives of millions of people.” Well, here’s what I tell them: I don’t go to bed at night thinking about the children we saved; I go to bed weeping over the children we could not save. And when we don’t have enough money nor the access we need, we have to decide which children eat and which children do not eat, which children live, which children die. How would you like that job? Please, don’t ask us to choose who lives and who dies. In the spirit of Alfred Nobel, as inscribed on this medal, “peace and brotherhood,” let’s feed them all. Food is the pathway to peace.
AMY GOODMAN: “Food is the pathway to peace.” That’s World Food Programme executive director David Beasley accepting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome, on today, International Human Rights Day.
When we come back, we look at the hunger crisis with Ricardo Salvador of the Union of Concerned Scientists. We’ll also ask him about President-elect Biden’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which could play a key role in feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic. And then we’ll look at the crisis in Ethiopia. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Richard Fariña’s “Birmingham Sunday,” performed by the University of California Riverside Chamber Singers, arranged for chorus by Gene Glickman. Lifelong activist and music professor, Gene passed away last weekend at the age of 86.


truthout--2020-12-10--Direct Action Can Beat Fossil Fuels When Democrats Won’t

As Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin , the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse .
Those initiatives have included a campaign to jump-start oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ; the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the long-delayed Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota ; and a push by utility companies to obtain funding and permits for the construction of 235 gas-fired power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectancy .
In response , horrified progressives have sought to pressure the president-elect to appoint officials committed to blocking these and other similar projects .
But the strategy of pressuring leading Democrats hasn ’ t worked particularly well for environmentalists in the past and doesn ’ t seem to be working now .
Despite the movement ’ s full-court press for a real environmentalist presence in the administration , Biden designated Congressman Cedric Richmond as his “ liaison ” with that very movement .
Richmond voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he was the fifth-largest recipient of fossil-fuel cash .
Fortunately , a more promising strategy for defeating new fossil-fuel projects has been quietly bearing fruit , even in the Trump era .
Climate and Indigenous organizers have been attacking Big Energy companies and their investors , using economic pressure , boycotts , lawsuits , and disruptive direct-action tactics to impede drilling , interrupt the transportation of oil and gas , and choke off the flow of financing to , and insurance for , such projects .
This multipronged strategy has been so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially their sources of funding — have begun divesting from fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure .
As our desperately overheated planet continues setting records , understanding the largely unnoticed success of recent resistance movements is crucial if we hope to prevent total ecological collapse .
Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Is Vulnerable , But the End of Fossil Fuels Isn ’ t Inevitable The fossil-fuel industry and its champions in Congress recently complained that financial institutions were “ discriminating against America ’ s energy sector.
” Specifically , banks were “ folding to activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ policies against investing in new oil and gas operations.
” Trump ’ s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) responded by trying to force Wall Street to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge and undertake other new fossil-fuel initiatives .
Why have the banks suddenly become so unwilling to invest in a longtime favorite sector of theirs ?
One reason is that easy-to-access fossil fuels are getting scarcer .
In this era of “ extreme ” energy , companies have found themselves investing striking amounts of Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find , extract , and transport hydrocarbon deposits from deep oceans , the Arctic , oil sands , and shale .
At a time when oil prices were reliably above $ 80 per barrel , such projects were enormously profitable .
But the fracking boom of the Obama years burst that bubble , with oil prices dropping as low as $ 40 per barrel by 2015 and remaining well under $ 80 during the first three years of the Trump administration .
Meanwhile , renewable energy sources ( especially wind ) were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off investment capital , further reducing the demand for carbon-based power .
The global spread of Covid-19 tanked energy demand , turning the drop in oil prices into a nosedive .
The pandemic itself , the economic lockdowns , the lack of travel that went with them , and a Saudi-Russian price war drove oil to a calamitous low of $ 19 per barrel in April 2020 .
The result was widespread bankruptcies among shale producers and weakening viability among major banks saddled with $ 300 billion in shaky hydrocarbon loans .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withhold funding for new projects , while oil companies wrote down the value of their reserves , implicitly acknowledging that many of them may never be extracted .
A number of experts are now predicting that the “ fracking revolution ” has entered a period of terminal decline .
This potentially dire situation helps explain the latest Trump initiatives .
In order to lock in the next generation of major fossil-fuel projects , the industry ’ s partisans must convince the major oil companies to borrow and invest the many billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must also convince or coerce increasingly reluctant banks to fund the projects and induce insurers to underwrite ventures that are enormously risky .
This is a daunting but not impossible undertaking .
The history of capitalism is strewn with the carcasses of major industries that fell into terminal crisis and were overtaken by new competitors .
When it came to manufacturing , water power was replaced by electric power , just as fossil-fueled transportation replaced horses .
But history is also littered with industries that somehow survived the challenge of apparently superior substitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , has survived despite its monumental costs , poor performance , and the environmental catastrophes associated with it .
The reason : the U.S. government invested vast resources in it , forced other institutions to do the same , and suppressed political and economic resistance to it .
The same thing could happen with fossil fuels .
The major carbon corporations wield so much power and remain so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy that they can call on governments for subsidies to keep them afloat , no matter the economic ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil-fuel production .
Trump ’ s gambit in the Arctic Refuge , like his entire energy policy , has been anchored by attempts to increase such subsidies and so prolong the fossil-fuel era .
The industry giants are also using the current crisis to acquire bankrupt competitors at low prices and consolidate production into a ruling oligopoly .
The survivors could emerge even more powerful and so potentially even more capable of demanding handouts from the public .
Why Fossil Fuels Might Be Defeated Ironically , the Trump administration ’ s latest initiatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the industry can be defeated .
Because investors are increasingly reluctant to fund troubled extraction and infrastructure projects , the industry has enlisted the U.S. government to force them to do so .
The Arctic Refuge , a pristine wilderness area in Alaska where the Trump administration ’ s OCC and the industry have , absurdly enough , invoked anti-discrimination law ( alleging discrimination against both fossil-fuel producers and Indigenous Alaskans ) to try to compel the banks to invest , is the most obvious case of this .
Their desperation reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects has been in recent years .
All across the U.S. and Canada , climate and Indigenous organizers have successfully raised the level of risk attached to such investments .
The industry is highly vulnerable to delays in both drilling and the construction of the transportation infrastructure necessary to deliver oil and gas .
Delays raise production costs , while creating long-term uncertainty about the competitiveness of fossil fuels .
Green resistance movements have created a credible threat of chronic delays to and interruptions of such projects , leading major lenders to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The OCC ’ s efforts to strong-arm lenders are based on its recent finding “ that some of the nation ’ s largest banks had stopped doing business altogether with one or more major energy industry categories.
” As Alaskan lawmakers put it grimly , the banks were increasingly “ folding to activist environmental groups ’ pressure.
” Why has that pressure worked ?
By obstructing drilling and the construction of infrastructure ( especially pipelines and power plants ) , the green movement has added to the industry ’ s operating costs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fearing the risks now associated with those projects .
In this way , it ’ s won victories , even in a moment when the Trump administration was aggressively promoting fossil fuels , when a far-right majority controlled the Supreme Court , and when most congressional Democrats were sitting on their hands .
The movement has applied four mutually reinforcing strategies that , together , have often succeeded in blocking or at least delaying such projects and , in doing so , have rendered them ever less viable .
First , resistance groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the routes of proposed oil and natural gas pipelines .
Actions against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access ( DAPL ) pipelines , led by Indigenous communities seeking to protect their lands from devastation , have been the most visible examples of this .
In addition to forcing months of delays in construction , these on-site protests inspired a broader movement against fossil fuels and gave added impetus to demands for regulators , judges , and politicians to intervene .
Second , the movement targeted regulators in an effort to prevent or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects .
Even during the Obama era , federal regulators had mostly acted as “ rubber stamps ” for new fossil fuel projects .
But the Standing Rock Sioux campaign against DAPL successfully pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to announce a new environmental review of the pipeline , delaying it until Trump took office .
Third , the movement has filed lawsuits based on industry violations of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) and other laws .
Such suits often challenged the validity of permits already issued , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement with an alternative choke point when regulators and politicians proved unresponsive .
Finally , it targeted the “ money pipeline , ” pressuring banks , insurers , and other large institutions to divest from fossil fuels .
Initially , this strategy was largely symbolic , but no longer .
It ’ s now adding to the financial difficulties of Big Energy .
Shell Oil Company , for instance , recently labeled the divestment movement a “ material risk.
” In the case of the Arctic Refuge , the movement ’ s pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to obtain and also led investment firms to put pressure on insurance companies to steer clear of projects there .
This four-pronged strategy has yielded many victories and now poses a credible threat to future fossil-fuel projects .
In July 2020 , for instance , the business media announced a cascade of ominous news affecting four important pipelines : • A federal judge ruled that the DAPL permit was in violation of NEPA and ordered a time-consuming full environmental review .
Though the pipeline had been successfully built in North Dakota despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of being permanently closed anyway .
• An Indigenous landowners ’ lawsuit arguing that a second North Dakota pipeline , Marathon Oil ’ s Tesoro High Plains line , illegally trespassed on their territory led the Bureau of Indian Affairs to order its closing after 67 years of operation .
• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Montana district court judge that had stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline .
• Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled their Atlantic Coast pipeline project “ after years of delays and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last cancellation , Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette complained that “ the obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
” His attitude reflected a growing exasperation among industry leaders who have recently decried the “ rising tide of protests , litigation , and vandalism ” against pipelines and warned that the movement is reaching a new “ level of intensity ” with “ more opponents ” who are “ better organized.
” Indeed , the resistance has increased pessimism among industry executives and their investors .
According to Bloomberg News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentiments , the core big energy companies are ever more often concluding that “ the mega-projects of the past are no longer feasible in the face of unprecedented opposition to fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them.
” The July decisions on the two North Dakota pipelines were especially significant since they threatened already operating projects .
As one former pipeline executive put it , this meant that even projects that successfully weathered a storm of protests and secured the necessary permits to operate remained vulnerable and might be shuttered long before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospect , “ I think it ’ s going to be incredibly difficult for anybody to invest in any kind of [ fossil-fuel ] infrastructure.
” Echoing his view , North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum warned that the DAPL ruling might be “ a tipping point , which actually could really cripple production in North Dakota.
” Even if the industry ultimately wins some of its current battles , it might not be able to keep investors on board .
The prospect that some future judicial decision could imperil their existing investments deprives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as one industry lobbying group warned in March .
This threat is compounded by the prospect that , in the Biden years to come , other parts of the government may finally begin taking action to stop climate destruction , which could leave fossil-fuel assets “ stranded.
” If the green movement can continue to disrupt the certainty that investing in oil fields and pipelines will return big profits , count on this : capitalists will begin to desert fossil fuels big time .
Billionaire investment strategist Jeremy Grantham predicts a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He expects that investors will respond to the mounting threats to the fossil-fuel industry “ very slowly ” for a while and then “ all at once.
” The point of resistance , then , is to increase the delays , closures , and disruptions that make fossil fuels a risky investment , therefore ensuring that the “ all at once ” tipping point arrives before humanity crosses the threshold of irreversible catastrophe .
What does all this mean for the current movement to win a Green New Deal ?
Electing pro-GND candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , but the movement must avoid the trap of investing all its energy and resources in electoral campaigns and lobbying .
The Democratic Party leadership , including President-elect Biden , has mocked the Green New Deal and committed itself instead to a dangerous “ all of the above ” energy policy that includes plenty of oil , gas , and nuclear power .
Even if Democrats were to win a Senate majority from the two January run-off elections in Georgia , Green New Deal legislation would remain a hard lift at best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , still move this country closer to a Green New Deal through the very same strategy that brought it victories during the Obama and Trump eras .
By obstructing fossil-fuel projects at every turn , it can deprive the industry of the Wall Street investments it needs and lead private investors to view renewables , ever cheaper to produce , as a safer option .
The government itself will be forced to invest in renewables in order to meet society ’ s energy needs and provide jobs to replace those lost when fossil-fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement has long demanded .
Direct resistance to fossil fuels is the shortest and surest path to a renewable energy transition .
When you make the building of more pipelines and gas-powered plants so much harder , you also make the Green New Deal and a livable planet so much more possible .

As Donald Trump gave in to the demand that the transition process to the Biden years officially begin, the administration and its fossil-fuel allies doubled down on their efforts to implement destructive environmental policies that President Biden might try to reverse. Those initiatives have included a campaign to jump-start oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the long-delayed Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota; and a push by utility companies to obtain funding and permits for the construction of 235 gas-fired power plants, each with a 30-year life expectancy.
In response, horrified progressives have sought to pressure the president-elect to appoint officials committed to blocking these and other similar projects. But the strategy of pressuring leading Democrats hasn’t worked particularly well for environmentalists in the past and doesn’t seem to be working now. Despite the movement’s full-court press for a real environmentalist presence in the administration, Biden designated Congressman Cedric Richmond as his “liaison” with that very movement. Richmond voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline and, among Democrats in the House, he was the fifth-largest recipient of fossil-fuel cash.
Fortunately, a more promising strategy for defeating new fossil-fuel projects has been quietly bearing fruit, even in the Trump era. Climate and Indigenous organizers have been attacking Big Energy companies and their investors, using economic pressure, boycotts, lawsuits, and disruptive direct-action tactics to impede drilling, interrupt the transportation of oil and gas, and choke off the flow of financing to, and insurance for, such projects. This multipronged strategy has been so surprisingly successful that the companies themselves — especially their sources of funding — have begun divesting from fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure. As our desperately overheated planet continues setting records, understanding the largely unnoticed success of recent resistance movements is crucial if we hope to prevent total ecological collapse.
Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Is Vulnerable, But the End of Fossil Fuels Isn’t Inevitable
The fossil-fuel industry and its champions in Congress recently complained that financial institutions were “discriminating against America’s energy sector.” Specifically, banks were “folding to activist environmental groups’ pressure” by adopting “policies against investing in new oil and gas operations.” Trump’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) responded by trying to force Wall Street to fund drilling in the Arctic Refuge and undertake other new fossil-fuel initiatives.
Why have the banks suddenly become so unwilling to invest in a longtime favorite sector of theirs? One reason is that easy-to-access fossil fuels are getting scarcer. In this era of “extreme” energy, companies have found themselves investing striking amounts of Wall Street capital (and wreaking environmental devastation) to find, extract, and transport hydrocarbon deposits from deep oceans, the Arctic, oil sands, and shale. At a time when oil prices were reliably above $80 per barrel, such projects were enormously profitable. But the fracking boom of the Obama years burst that bubble, with oil prices dropping as low as $40 per barrel by 2015 and remaining well under $80 during the first three years of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources (especially wind) were growing cheaper by the month and siphoning off investment capital, further reducing the demand for carbon-based power.
The global spread of Covid-19 tanked energy demand, turning the drop in oil prices into a nosedive. The pandemic itself, the economic lockdowns, the lack of travel that went with them, and a Saudi-Russian price war drove oil to a calamitous low of $19 per barrel in April 2020. The result was widespread bankruptcies among shale producers and weakening viability among major banks saddled with $300 billion in shaky hydrocarbon loans. To prevent further losses, those banks started to withhold funding for new projects, while oil companies wrote down the value of their reserves, implicitly acknowledging that many of them may never be extracted. A number of experts are now predicting that the “fracking revolution” has entered a period of terminal decline.
This potentially dire situation helps explain the latest Trump initiatives. In order to lock in the next generation of major fossil-fuel projects, the industry’s partisans must convince the major oil companies to borrow and invest the many billions of dollars needed to complete them. They must also convince or coerce increasingly reluctant banks to fund the projects and induce insurers to underwrite ventures that are enormously risky.
This is a daunting but not impossible undertaking. The history of capitalism is strewn with the carcasses of major industries that fell into terminal crisis and were overtaken by new competitors. When it came to manufacturing, water power was replaced by electric power, just as fossil-fueled transportation replaced horses. But history is also littered with industries that somehow survived the challenge of apparently superior substitutes. The nuclear power industry, for instance, has survived despite its monumental costs, poor performance, and the environmental catastrophes associated with it. The reason: the U.S. government invested vast resources in it, forced other institutions to do the same, and suppressed political and economic resistance to it.
The same thing could happen with fossil fuels. The major carbon corporations wield so much power and remain so deeply embedded in the U.S. economy that they can call on governments for subsidies to keep them afloat, no matter the economic (let alone environmental) irrationality of continued fossil-fuel production. Trump’s gambit in the Arctic Refuge, like his entire energy policy, has been anchored by attempts to increase such subsidies and so prolong the fossil-fuel era. The industry giants are also using the current crisis to acquire bankrupt competitors at low prices and consolidate production into a ruling oligopoly. The survivors could emerge even more powerful and so potentially even more capable of demanding handouts from the public.
Why Fossil Fuels Might Be Defeated
Ironically, the Trump administration’s latest initiatives on behalf of fossil fuels also reveal how the industry can be defeated. Because investors are increasingly reluctant to fund troubled extraction and infrastructure projects, the industry has enlisted the U.S. government to force them to do so. The Arctic Refuge, a pristine wilderness area in Alaska where the Trump administration’s OCC and the industry have, absurdly enough, invoked anti-discrimination law (alleging discrimination against both fossil-fuel producers and Indigenous Alaskans) to try to compel the banks to invest, is the most obvious case of this.
Their desperation reflects just how effective the resistance to fossil-fuel projects has been in recent years. All across the U.S. and Canada, climate and Indigenous organizers have successfully raised the level of risk attached to such investments. The industry is highly vulnerable to delays in both drilling and the construction of the transportation infrastructure necessary to deliver oil and gas. Delays raise production costs, while creating long-term uncertainty about the competitiveness of fossil fuels. Green resistance movements have created a credible threat of chronic delays to and interruptions of such projects, leading major lenders to begin shifting from reluctance-to-invest to outright refusal.
The OCC’s efforts to strong-arm lenders are based on its recent finding “that some of the nation’s largest banks had stopped doing business altogether with one or more major energy industry categories.” As Alaskan lawmakers put it grimly, the banks were increasingly “folding to activist environmental groups’ pressure.”
Why has that pressure worked? By obstructing drilling and the construction of infrastructure (especially pipelines and power plants), the green movement has added to the industry’s operating costs in increasingly bad times, while leaving investors fearing the risks now associated with those projects. In this way, it’s won victories, even in a moment when the Trump administration was aggressively promoting fossil fuels, when a far-right majority controlled the Supreme Court, and when most congressional Democrats were sitting on their hands.
The movement has applied four mutually reinforcing strategies that, together, have often succeeded in blocking or at least delaying such projects and, in doing so, have rendered them ever less viable.
First, resistance groups mounted disruptive protests at extraction sites and along the routes of proposed oil and natural gas pipelines. Actions against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access (DAPL) pipelines, led by Indigenous communities seeking to protect their lands from devastation, have been the most visible examples of this. In addition to forcing months of delays in construction, these on-site protests inspired a broader movement against fossil fuels and gave added impetus to demands for regulators, judges, and politicians to intervene.
Second, the movement targeted regulators in an effort to prevent or postpone the issuing of permits for the projects. Even during the Obama era, federal regulators had mostly acted as “rubber stamps” for new fossil fuel projects. But the Standing Rock Sioux campaign against DAPL successfully pressured the Army Corps of Engineers to announce a new environmental review of the pipeline, delaying it until Trump took office.
Third, the movement has filed lawsuits based on industry violations of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. Such suits often challenged the validity of permits already issued, which slowed down industry operations and provided the movement with an alternative choke point when regulators and politicians proved unresponsive.
Finally, it targeted the “money pipeline,” pressuring banks, insurers, and other large institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Initially, this strategy was largely symbolic, but no longer. It’s now adding to the financial difficulties of Big Energy. Shell Oil Company, for instance, recently labeled the divestment movement a “material risk.” In the case of the Arctic Refuge, the movement’s pressure on Wall Street has made big loans harder to obtain and also led investment firms to put pressure on insurance companies to steer clear of projects there.
This four-pronged strategy has yielded many victories and now poses a credible threat to future fossil-fuel projects. In July 2020, for instance, the business media announced a cascade of ominous news affecting four important pipelines:
A federal judge ruled that the DAPL permit was in violation of NEPA and ordered a time-consuming full environmental review. Though the pipeline had been successfully built in North Dakota despite much resistance, it is now at risk of being permanently closed anyway.
An Indigenous landowners’ lawsuit arguing that a second North Dakota pipeline, Marathon Oil’s Tesoro High Plains line, illegally trespassed on their territory led the Bureau of Indian Affairs to order its closing after 67 years of operation.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Montana district court judge that had stopped construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Dominion Energy and Duke Energy cancelled their Atlantic Coast pipeline project “after years of delays and ballooning costs.”
In response to that last cancellation, Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette complained that “the obstructionist environmental lobby has successfully killed the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.” His attitude reflected a growing exasperation among industry leaders who have recently decried the “rising tide of protests, litigation, and vandalism” against pipelines and warned that the movement is reaching a new “level of intensity” with “more opponents” who are “better organized.”
Indeed, the resistance has increased pessimism among industry executives and their investors. According to Bloomberg News, typically a gauge of Wall Street sentiments, the core big energy companies are ever more often concluding that “the mega-projects of the past are no longer feasible in the face of unprecedented opposition to fossil fuels and the infrastructure that supports them.”
A Tipping Point?
The July decisions on the two North Dakota pipelines were especially significant since they threatened already operating projects. As one former pipeline executive put it, this meant that even projects that successfully weathered a storm of protests and secured the necessary permits to operate remained vulnerable and might be shuttered long before repaying their immense debts. With that prospect, “I think it’s going to be incredibly difficult for anybody to invest in any kind of [fossil-fuel] infrastructure.” Echoing his view, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum warned that the DAPL ruling might be “a tipping point, which actually could really cripple production in North Dakota.”
Even if the industry ultimately wins some of its current battles, it might not be able to keep investors on board. The prospect that some future judicial decision could imperil their existing investments deprives them of “certainty from the government,” as one industry lobbying group warned in March. This threat is compounded by the prospect that, in the Biden years to come, other parts of the government may finally begin taking action to stop climate destruction, which could leave fossil-fuel assets “stranded.”
If the green movement can continue to disrupt the certainty that investing in oil fields and pipelines will return big profits, count on this: capitalists will begin to desert fossil fuels big time. Billionaire investment strategist Jeremy Grantham predicts a tipping point in the near future. He expects that investors will respond to the mounting threats to the fossil-fuel industry “very slowly” for a while and then “all at once.” The point of resistance, then, is to increase the delays, closures, and disruptions that make fossil fuels a risky investment, therefore ensuring that the “all at once” tipping point arrives before humanity crosses the threshold of irreversible catastrophe.
What does all this mean for the current movement to win a Green New Deal? Electing pro-GND candidates has helped place it on the legislative agenda, but the movement must avoid the trap of investing all its energy and resources in electoral campaigns and lobbying. The Democratic Party leadership, including President-elect Biden, has mocked the Green New Deal and committed itself instead to a dangerous “all of the above” energy policy that includes plenty of oil, gas, and nuclear power. Even if Democrats were to win a Senate majority from the two January run-off elections in Georgia, Green New Deal legislation would remain a hard lift at best.
The environmental movement can, however, still move this country closer to a Green New Deal through the very same strategy that brought it victories during the Obama and Trump eras. By obstructing fossil-fuel projects at every turn, it can deprive the industry of the Wall Street investments it needs and lead private investors to view renewables, ever cheaper to produce, as a safer option. The government itself will be forced to invest in renewables in order to meet society’s energy needs and provide jobs to replace those lost when fossil-fuel projects are blocked, as the climate movement has long demanded. Direct resistance to fossil fuels is the shortest and surest path to a renewable energy transition. When you make the building of more pipelines and gas-powered plants so much harder, you also make the Green New Deal and a livable planet so much more possible.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.