Is Privatized Uranium Company Too Rigged to Fail?
After a round of loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, bracketed by investigations and hearings on the Solyndra scandal, just one big project remains on the docket of the beleaguered Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy (DOE). The applicant is the formerly government-owned uranium enricher, USEC Inc., the same company that supplied the uranium fuel melted down inside the reactors at Fukushima. If Solyndra has been a nightmare for the Obama Administration, USEC is a recurring psychotic-break flashback to a bad acid trip.
USEC has spun a decade-long saga over whether it will or won't build a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant, in the key swing region of Appalachian Ohio, near Piketon. The company now faces a series of financing and performance deadlines, starting Nov. 1. On Friday, Oct. 21, USEC announced an alleged deal with the DOE that would inaugurate hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of new federal spending in support of the "privatized" company.
Four days later, however, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent letters to Congress suggesting that any commitment to USEC would require a congressional appropriation, tossing the radioactive potato into U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner's (R-OH) lap. Boehner, whose congressional district neighbors that of Piketon, immediately came under intense fire for support of USEC from his own right wing, expressed best in a piece in the National Review: Another Solyndra—Henry Sokolski & Autumn Hanna—National Review Online. It carries the caustic subtitle Ohio Republicans join the energy subsidy racket.
Subsequently, USEC retreated from its claim of a deal, saying late on Halloween—trick or treat—only that "advanced talks" with DOE and Congress continue (USEC Inc. News Release: USEC Provides Update on American Centrifuge Project).
The Archetype of Planned Failure
Piketon has been the proving ground for the strategic wastage of federal funds on a gargantuan scale since 1952, when Democrat Alvin Barkley of Kentucky (Truman's vice president) and Republican Robert Taft of southern Ohio (a perennial presidential candidate) teamed up to site the largest and most energy-consuming facility in the world, in the most impoverished corner of the state most critical for electoral college victories. (Pike County retains the highest unemployment rate of Ohio's eighty-eight counties).
That enrichment plant, which at opening required more electricity than the city of New York, was closed in 2001, but accomplishing that closure required the titular privatization of USEC, to remove accountability for the layoffs from the politicians of both parties. The site and all the buildings upon it are still owned by the federal government.
"Privatized" USEC now seeks a $2 billion federal loan guarantee—nearly four times the Solyndra loss—though the total market valuation of USEC is only about one eighth of that amount. USEC's future revenue is severely constrained by scheduled closure of its remaining gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky (Barkley's home town), in just seven months, and by expiration of its sweetheart concession on the sale of downblended Russian uranium from dismantled warheads in just two years. USEC has about $800 million in debt to bondholders coming due in 2014, at least three years before any new facility possibly could come online. That impending triple-whammy makes USEC the worst bet since huckster Bobby Riggs in his challenge match against tennis pro Billie Jean King.
Make it a quadruple-whammy with the collapse of the projected market for nuclear fuel, since the Fukushima disaster and the resulting wave of nuclear roll-back decisions in Japan, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Scotland, Belgium and even Texas.
As with Solyndra, USEC's technology faces stiff commercial competition. Unlike Solyndra, USEC's default risk is entirely predictable in advance of any loan, and the competition is domestic, with projects now completed or underway in New Mexico, Idaho and North Carolina. Ohio's politicians now complain that AREVA USA, purveyor of the Idaho project that has already been awarded a $2 billion DOE loan guarantee, is the subsidiary of a French-owned company. The complainers sang a different tune when they tried to woo the same plant to Ohio.
DOE already rejected USEC's application in 2009 on all three criteria—technical, financial and regulatory—but USEC was then granted an extension of the review, against the rules, by the flex of pure political muscle. The biggest flexor was then-governor, Democrat Ted Strickland, who hails from Piketon's general neighborhood and had served on the USEC Privatization Board in the 1990s as congressman from the district.
To his credit, Strickland originally opposed the privatization as a scandal-plagued "exercise in private enrichment" (pun intended), but curiously, after a decade as the lead beneficiary of USEC campaign contributions, Strickland became the company's shill-in-chief. Strickland received more than $30,000 in corporate contributions from USEC for his 2010 gubernatorial reelection campaign, not counting a $6,000 contribution that had to be returned because it was timed too closely to a meeting that Strickland held with Energy Secretary Chu, explicitly to lobby for a USEC loan guarantee.
At the 13th anniversary of its privatization, USEC can claim a string of bad luck for the record-books. Announcement of the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) was postponed twice in 2003—first, when Iran revealed its far-along centrifuge program, which President G.W. Bush unthinkingly called a "criminal" enterprise (unthinking about the pending USEC extravaganza for an operation much like that in Iran), and second, when Muammar Gaddafi said that he, too, had a centrifuge program, obviously more advanced than USEC's.
If tent-colonel Gaddafi could beat you to the hi-tech punch, your machinery couldn't exactly be counted as cutting-edge. Adding irony, Gaddafi's surrendered stock of enriched uranium was shipped for storage to Piketon, where the old enrichment plant had given way to a uranium waste warehouse, with the habitual false promise of salvaging Ohio jobs. (Now that uranium has been moved to Oak Ridge, Tennessee).
In early 2004, when USEC finally did unveil ACP, with patriotic ballyhoo that was trademark Ohio-country baloney, it was absent any financing plan for the facility, now estimated to cost at least five billion dollars, except for some vague idea that the government would pay for it, negating the letter and spirit of privatization. In the fantasy scenario of ACP opening for business, it would make the highest-priced reactor fuel in the world, by design.
After applying for a DOE loan guarantee in 2008, USEC had the misfortune of spotlighting ACP's lead future customer, which was Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), owner of the nuclear reactors to be stricken and shut down at Fukushima. That blooper was compounded when USEC claimed it would seek needed additional financing for ACP—between $600 million and $1 billion—from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. There's been no sign of that financing either before or since the nuclear disaster in Japan, and it's difficult to comprehend why a Japanese national bank would choose to subsidize a non-competitive U.S. nuclear project at this particular point in time.
Within ten days of the meltdowns in March of 2011, USEC signaled defeat by signing an agreement to satisfy its customers with uranium supplied by the Russian company TENEX, and also to support a future TENEX centrifuge plant to be built on U.S. soil. The American Centrifuge Plant thus transmuted into the Russo-Japanese Centrifuge Plant.
With no case to make for commercial viability, USEC's public relations crew has fallen back on the vague assertion that the plant would serve a unique role for "national security," which has the unsavory consequence of making USEC's project sound much like those in Iran and North Korea. U.S. Senator Rob Portman, who represented Pike County in Congress post-Strickland, has disclosed that ACP would make the fuel for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power reactors, which also provide tritium for the replenishment of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH) who inherited the congressional seat when Portman was tapped to become U.S. Trade Representative, recently said that ACP failure would "handcuff our foreign policy, weaken our military posture and put at risk American business interests worldwide." Schmidt, you may recall, is the national security expert who made her debut on the House floor by implying that ex-Marine Jack Murtha was a coward.
Regarding, Schmidt's assertions about ACP, the opposite is true. USEC's national defense claim rests on the fact that other new enrichment technologies are under foreign license restrictions that bar military applications. Contrary to advertisement, USEC also employs some unspecified components that are manufactured and licensed abroad. However, USEC licenses the core of its technology directly from DOE, fulfilling a requirement of the USEC Privatization Act for development of "advanced technology" that can meet hypothetical future U.S. needs for weapons-grade uranium, a defect in the Act since we can neither gauge long-range future needs, nor meet those needs in a backhanded way through commercial private projects. The royalties on the technology—$100 million owed the U.S. government—have been deferred until the hypothetical plant opens, another hidden subsidy since it never will.
Enriched uranium has not been used as material in U.S. nuclear weapons since it was banned for such use by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
In fact, USEC's enormous forty-foot high centrifuges are not "innovative" as claimed, because they were developed by the U.S. government more than thirty years ago, specifically to replace the problem-plagued high-assay enrichment facility at the old Ohio plant. The commercial limitations of this technology are related to its dual-use design. DOE's interest in continuing R&D on the centrifuge technology, as expressed in the recent letters from Chu, may reside solely in maintaining a future capacity to make weapons-grade uranium, an interest wholly distinct from the commercial advertisements of USEC.
It's the dual-use character of ACP that undermines real security interests and non-proliferation objectives. The U.S. cannot continue to oppose potential dual-use centrifuge facilities in Iran or North Korea, if we blur the line between nuclear power and nuclear weapons with our "new build."
Nor is it practical. The government stockpile of weapons-grade uranium easily can be downblended to feed the reactors at TVA. And in anticipation of ACP's demise, DOE has created a new stockpile of reactor-grade uranium called the "Strategic Uranium Reserve," obviously with replacement of USEC uranium in mind.
The American Centrifuge Plant boils down to a failed commercial program recast as a clandestine military research and development project, in order to roust up the necessary support for congressional appropriations. Thus, for the sake of a petty political game in the root hills of southern Ohio, we tempt terrible consequences. If the U.S. or Israel were to strike at Iran's bunkered centrifuge facilities, where would the Iranians symmetrically target in reprisal? Even if ACP never operates commercially, that would be Piketon. But for the American people this is all hush-hush.
A Done Deal?
DOE has pushed back against USEC efforts to extort a loan guarantee, which would only be a formula for future default. The problem is that presidential politics and the power of "super" congressmen from southern Ohio, including Boehner and Portman, make Pike County nuclear boondoggles practically non-cancelable. Six of USEC's test centrifuges crashed last June, but the pols can keep spinning promises of jobs, jobs that never materialize, ad infinitum.
It's in that context that USEC announced in late October "ongoing negotiations," with DOE over an immediate direct government bailout of $300 million, instead of a loan guarantee. Allegedly, this money would pay for a research and development program for ACP technology that might attract the kind of private investment USEC hasn't had. Boeing, which fleetingly agreed to co-manufacture the USEC centrifuges, fled the project with no explanation in 2008.
Apparently, USEC jumped the gun and revealed the new deal before one actually has been struck, either to preempt leakage of the news that a guarantee has been denied yet again, or to head off a crash in USEC stock price, or both. Within days of the announcement, the story from DOE has changed substantially.
First reports, including one by the Associated Press, mentioned an immediate DOE cash infusion of $150 million, from unspecified "existing funds," with an additional $150 million contingent on congressional appropriation. But hurried letters from Chu and other DOE officials seem to deny that there is an "existing" source for USEC funding, and suggest that any substitution for the non-forthcoming loan guarantee would need to be appropriated by Congress.
That clarification follows upon a scathing report by the Government Accountability Office, issued in September, which found that two USEC programs at Piketon were rogue operations, funded illegally through DOE usurping the legislature's "power of the purse." http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11846.pdf
DOE is also smarting from charges in the Solyndra case that the Loan Programs Office vastly exceeded its authority to structure bailout terms on its own. When the USEC loan guarantee was denied in 2009, DOE offered a compensatory package that included $45 million in research and development assistance, and up to $200 million in a no-bid contract for make-work "stimulus" jobs at Piketon, just to keep USEC workers on payroll. That offer was creatively funded outside of congressional authority through a "barter" of uranium that was claimed to not constitute an actual government "expenditure."
The arrangement had shades of the Iran-Contra Affair, whereby a government agency invents ways to fund shadow-government operations, minus accountability or oversight. The difference in this case is that the black-market Autonomous Republic of USEC was established at the center of the American heartland in Ohio.
The uranium barter also brought intense opposition from western governors and legislators, upset about the undercutting of their uranium mining industry. And perpetual bailouts of USEC at this point constitute effective renationalization of the company, contrary to the statute by which USEC was created.
If Congress does salivate to the Ohio bellwether, the new USEC funding would come in addition to unaccounted billions of dollars already wasted by the federal government on the corruption-plagued centrifuge program at Piketon since 1977. Former GOP U.S. Senator George Voinovich once slipped and referred to additional funds for USEC as "pouring money down a rat hole," and the same phrase was repeated recently by Democratic U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, while Brown was struggling to advocate for USEC.
USEC was obligated to complete its Lead Cascade demonstration project in 2005. It never did, and there is substantial evidence that USEC intentionally ditched the demonstration because resulting data would prove the technology commercially nonviable. Instead, USEC has belligerently demanded federal backing for a $2 billion loan before the company has met any of the Title XVII requirements for feasibility and credit-worthiness. (In July of 2009, DOE reviewers were specific on that point. In a draft copy of the denial announcement, released under the Freedom of Information Act, DOE staff wrote: "the project is not yet ready to move to commercial scale operations and therefore USEC's application would likely not meet the legal requirements of the 2005 EPACT statute and the subsequent Title 17 loan guarantee regulations)." It is nonsensical that years of additional delay and substantial additional cost for ACP would make it more competitive, when it already lags behind the competition on timing and cost, and when new technology developed by GE-Hitachi in North Carolina surpasses centrifuges in efficiency.
Lastly, and of personal import to me, artificial life support for a project destined to remain unfinished prohibits constructive alternative use of the site, and keeps the whole area locked in a state of high-security suspended animation. That is the opposite of a jobs and revitalization program, and it represents continued political exploitation of this Appalachian community.
Obviously, the Obama Administration doesn't really think that a new subsidy for USEC will breathe life into ACP. The actual objective is to kick the can past the 2012 election, without "giving USEC the knife" as a congressional staffer put it to me. Postponing USEC's collapse, it is hoped, could be just the thing to secure Ohio's electoral votes for Obama.
That's idiotic thinking coming from people who fancy themselves quite smart. The country can ill afford continued infrastructure wastage to maintain a federal site for a private project that has no future. Thirty-five years of nuclear flimflam has taught us a thing or two. If the Administration wants to screw my community by keeping mostly-empty buildings at the federal site fenced off with high security, at tremendous national expense, I'm here to say that it won't be done on the down-low.
Duds'n'Suds—or—It all Comes out in the Wash
It's worth recalling that the great Teapot Dome scandal was perpetrated by Warren G. Harding's Ohio Gang, involving crooked concessions for the supply of diesel fuel to the U.S. Navy. The Piketon plant, not far from Harding's hometown, also made fuel for the Navy, updated for the Atomic Age, but the modus operandi remained very much the same. Buckeye State corruption operates on the assumption that the rest of the country never catches on.
The U.S. centrifuge program emerged out of a crass promise made by Jimmy Carter when campaigning in Ohio in 1976. The promise, to build a second full-sized gaseous diffusion plant next to the existing one at Piketon, was cynically stupid, but it won Carter the Presidency—he prevailed in Pike and surrounding counties, carrying Ohio by about a quarter of one percent.
That's not a strategy recommendation. A woman at the Duds'n'Suds Laundromat in Piketon put it best, when asked her feelings about another hoax nuclear proposal for Piketon. She said with a grimace: "What are they promising now?" (It should be noted that the machines at the Duds'n'Suds do spin quite well, with no federal subsidy.)
For the sake of our treasury, our security, and this community's future, the site that is adjacent to my backyard should finally be freed for viable development. USEC's alleged privatization should be acknowledged as a sham. Continued federal support for USEC should be rejected, and the Department of Energy's authority to negotiate secret deals with USEC should be revoked.
For a decade now, the scions of both major political parties have been hawking the American Centrifuge Plant as a symbol of "innovation" that will go like gangbusters for the nation. Turns out it was only another Ohio Gang going bust.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Sherry H-Y. Chou, Aarti Sarwal and Neha S. Dangayach
The patient in the case report (let's call him Tom) was 54 and in good health. For two days in May, he felt unwell and was too weak to get out of bed. When his family finally brought him to the hospital, doctors found that he had a fever and signs of a severe infection, or sepsis. He tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 infection. In addition to symptoms of COVID-19, he was also too weak to move his legs.
When a neurologist examined him, Tom was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, an autoimmune disease that causes abnormal sensation and weakness due to delays in sending signals through the nerves. Usually reversible, in severe cases it can cause prolonged paralysis involving breathing muscles, require ventilator support and sometimes leave permanent neurological deficits. Early recognition by expert neurologists is key to proper treatment.
We are neurologists specializing in intensive care and leading studies related to neurological complications from COVID-19. Given the occurrence of Guillain-Barre Syndrome in prior pandemics with other corona viruses like SARS and MERS, we are investigating a possible link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome and COVID-19 and tracking published reports to see if there is any link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome and COVID-19.
Some patients may not seek timely medical care for neurological symptoms like prolonged headache, vision loss and new muscle weakness due to fear of getting exposed to virus in the emergency setting. People need to know that medical facilities have taken full precautions to protect patients. Seeking timely medical evaluation for neurological symptoms can help treat many of these diseases.
What Is Guillain-Barre Syndrome?
Guillain-Barre syndrome occurs when the body's own immune system attacks and injures the nerves outside of the spinal cord or brain – the peripheral nervous system. Most commonly, the injury involves the protective sheath, or myelin, that wraps nerves and is essential to nerve function.
Without the myelin sheath, signals that go through a nerve are slowed or lost, which causes the nerve to malfunction.
To diagnose Guillain-Barre Syndrome, neurologists perform a detailed neurological exam. Due to the nerve injury, patients often may have loss of reflexes on examination. Doctors often need to perform a lumbar puncture, otherwise known as spinal tap, to sample spinal fluid and look for signs of inflammation and abnormal antibodies.
Studies have shown that giving patients an infusion of antibodies derived from donated blood or plasma exchange – a process that cleans patients' blood of harmful antibodies - can speed up recovery. A very small subset of patients may need these therapies long-term.
The majority of Guillain-Barre Syndrome patients improve within a few weeks and eventually can make a full recovery. However, some patients with Guillain-Barre Syndrome have lingering symptoms including weakness and abnormal sensations in arms and/or legs; rarely patients may be bedridden or disabled long-term.
Guillain-Barre Syndrome and Pandemics
As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps across the globe, many neurologic specialists have been on the lookout for potentially serious nervous system complications such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Though Guillain-Barre Syndrome is rare, it is well known to emerge following bacterial infections, such as Campylobacter jejuni, a common cause of food poisoning, and a multitude of viral infections including the flu virus, Zika virus and other coronaviruses.
Studies showed an increase in Guillain-Barre Syndrome cases following the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, suggesting a possible connection. The presumed cause for this link is that the body's own immune response to fight the infection turns on itself and attacks the peripheral nerves. This is called an "autoimmune" condition. When a pandemic affects as many people as our current COVID-19 crisis, even a rare complication can become a significant public health problem. That is especially true for one that causes neurological dysfunction where the recovery takes a long time and may be incomplete.
Though there is clear clinical suspicion that COVID-19 can lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, many important questions remain. What are the chances that someone gets Guillain-Barre Syndrome during or following a COVID-19 infection? Does Guillain-Barre Syndrome happen more often in those who have been infected with COVID-19 compared to other types of infections, such as the flu?
The only way to get answers is through a prospective study where doctors perform systematic surveillance and collect data on a large group of patients. There are ongoing large research consortia hard at work to figure out answers to these questions.
Understanding the Association Between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barre Syndrome
While large research studies are underway, overall it appears that Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a rare but serious phenomenon possibly linked to COVID-19. Given that more than 10.7 million cases have been reported for COVID-19, there have been 10 reported cases of COVID-19 patients with Guillain-Barre Syndrome so far – only two reported cases in the U.S., five in Italy, two cases in Iran and one from Wuhan, China.
It is certainly possible that there are other cases that have not been reported. The Global Consortium Study of Neurological Dysfunctions in COVID-19 is actively underway to find out how often neurological problems like Guillain-Barre Syndrome is seen in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Also, just because Guillain-Barre Syndrome occurs in a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, that does not imply that it was caused by the virus; this still may be a coincident occurrence. More research is needed to understand how the two events are related.
Due to the pandemic and infection-containment considerations, diagnostic tests, such as a nerve conduction study that used to be routine for patients with suspected Guillain-Barre Syndrome, are more difficult to do. In both U.S. cases, the initial diagnosis and treatment were all based on clinical examination by a neurological experts rather than any tests. Both patients survived but with significant residual weakness at the time these case reports came out, but that is not uncommon for Guillain-Barre Syndrome patients. The road to recovery may sometimes be long, but many patients can make a full recovery with time.
Though the reported cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome so far all have severe symptoms, this is not uncommon in a pandemic situation where the less sick patients may stay home and not present for medical care for fear of being exposed to the virus. This, plus the limited COVID-19 testing capability across the U.S., may skew our current detection of Guillain-Barre Syndrome cases toward the sicker patients who have to go to a hospital. In general, the majority of Guillain-Barre Syndrome patients do recover, given enough time. We do not yet know whether this is true for COVID-19-related cases at this stage of the pandemic. We and colleagues around the world are working around the clock to find answers to these critical questions.
Sherry H-Y. Chou is an Associate Professor of Critical Care Medicine, Neurology, and Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh.
Aarti Sarwal is an Associate Professor, Neurology, Wake Forest University.
Neha S. Dangayach is an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Disclosure statement: Sherry H-Y. Chou receives funding from The University of Pittsburgh Clinical Translational Science Institute (CTSI), the National Institute of Health, and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Dean's Faculty Advancement Award. Sherry H-Y. Chou is a member of Board of Directors for the Neurocritical Care Society. Neha S. Dangayach receives funding from the Bee Foundation, the Friedman Brain Institute, the Neurocritical Care Society, InCHIP-UConn Center for mHealth and Social Media Seed Grant. She is faculty for emcrit.org and for AiSinai. Aarti Sarwal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
One of the initial reasons social distancing guidelines were put in place was to allow the healthcare system to adapt to a surge in patients since there was a critical shortage of beds, ventilators and personal protective equipment. In fact, masks that were designed for single-use were reused for an entire week in some hospitals.
- Silent Threat of the Coronavirus: America's Dependence on Chinese ... ›
- Rich Countries Are Buying up Medical Supplies, Leaving Poor ... ›
By Jake Johnson
Unity Task Forces formed by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders unveiled sweeping party platform recommendations Wednesday that—while falling short of progressive ambitions in a number of areas, from climate to healthcare—were applauded as important steps toward a bold and just policy agenda that matches the severity of the moment.
"We've moved the needle a lot, especially on environmental justice and upping Biden's ambition," said Sunrise Movement co-founder and executive director Varshini Prakash, a member of the Biden-Sanders Climate Task Force. "But there's still more work to do to push Democrats to act at the scale of the climate crisis."
The climate panel—co-chaired by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former Secretary of State John Kerry—recommended that the Democratic Party commit to "eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035," massively expanding investments in clean energy sources, and "achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for all new buildings by 2030."
In a series of tweets Wednesday night, Ocasio-Cortez—the lead sponsor of the House Green New Deal resolution—noted that the Climate Task Force "shaved 15 years off Biden's previous target for 100% clean energy."
"Of course, like in any collaborative effort, there are areas of negotiation and compromise," said the New York Democrat. "But I do believe that the Climate Task Force effort meaningfully and substantively improved Biden's positions."
Today the 6 Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces are unveiling final language. The Climate Task Force accomplished a gr… https://t.co/gz3broq2qe— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)1594240617.0
The 110 pages of policy recommendations from the six eight-person Unity Task Forces on education, the economy, criminal justice, immigration, climate change, and healthcare are aimed at shaping negotiations over the 2020 Democratic platform at the party's convention next month.
Sanders said that while the "end result isn't what I or my supporters would've written alone, the task forces have created a good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction and substantially improve the lives of working families throughout our country."
"I look forward to working with Vice President Biden to help him win this campaign," the Vermont senator added, "and to move this country forward toward economic, racial, social, and environmental justice."
Biden, for his part, applauded the task forces "for helping build a bold, transformative platform for our party and for our country."
"I am deeply grateful to Bernie Sanders for working with us to unite our party and deliver real, lasting change for generations to come," said the former vice president.
On the life-or-death matter of reforming America's dysfunctional private health insurance system—a subject on which Sanders and Biden clashed repeatedly throughout the Democratic primary process—the Unity Task Force affirmed healthcare as "a right" but did not embrace Medicare for All, the signature policy plank of the Vermont senator's presidential bid.
Instead, the panel recommended building on the Affordable Care Act by establishing a public option, investing in community health centers, and lowering prescription drug costs by allowing the federal government to negotiate prices. The task force also endorsed making all Covid-19 testing, treatments, and potential vaccines free and expanding Medicaid for the duration of the pandemic.
"It has always been a crisis that tens of millions of Americans have no or inadequate health insurance—but in a pandemic, it's potentially catastrophic for public health," the task force wrote.
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a former Michigan gubernatorial candidate and Sanders-appointed member of the Healthcare Task Force, said that despite major disagreements, the panel "came to recommendations that will yield one of the most progressive Democratic campaign platforms in history—though we have further yet to go."
We rein in #pharma's greed by: 1) Allowing Medicare to FINALLY negotiate Rx drugs FOR ALL AMERICANS 2) Using Rx d… https://t.co/6k9iUCLMp7— Abdul El-Sayed (@Abdul El-Sayed)1594238411.0
Observers and advocacy groups also applauded the Unity Task Forces for recommending the creation of a postal banking system, endorsing a ban on for-profit charter schools, ending the use of private prisons, and imposing a 100-day moratorium on deportations "while conducting a full-scale study on current practices to develop recommendations for transforming enforcement policies and practices at ICE and CBP."
Marisa Franco, director of immigrant rights group Mijente, said in a statement that "going into these task force negotiations, we knew we were going to have to push Biden past his comfort zone, both to reconcile with past offenses and to carve a new path forward."
"That is exactly what we did, unapologetically," said Franco, a member of the Immigration Task Force. "For years, Mijente, along with the broader immigrant rights movement, has fought to reshape the narrative around immigration towards racial justice and to focus these very demands. We expect Biden and the Democratic Party to implement them in their entirety."
"There is no going back," Franco added. "Not an inch, not a step. We must only move forward from here."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
- Poll: 96% of Democratic Voters Want 2020 Nominee to Prioritize ... ›
- House Democrats Hold First Climate Change Hearings in More ... ›
- Latino Voters Worried About Climate Change Could Swing 2020 ... ›
Yellowstone Grizzlies Win Reprieve From Trophy Hunt as Court Restores Endangered Species Protections
- Wyoming Votes to Allow First Grizzly Bear Hunt in 40 Years ... ›
- British Columbia Bans Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunting - EcoWatch ›
- Good News for Yellowstone Grizzlies? U.S. to Review 'Flawed ... ›
- Judge Blocks First Yellowstone-Area Grizzly Hunt in 40 Years ... ›
By Alexandra Rowles
Oregano is a fragrant herb that's best known as an ingredient in Italian food.
However, it can also be concentrated into an essential oil that's loaded with antioxidants and powerful compounds that have proven health benefits.
- Essential Oils: 7 Common Questions Answered - EcoWatch ›
- 9 Ways to Boost Your Immune System - EcoWatch ›
- 15 Impressive Herbs with Antiviral Activity - EcoWatch ›
- Brazil Using Pandemic as Smokescreen for New Attacks on the ... ›
- In 'Totalitarian' Move, Brazil's Bolsonaro Removes Death and Case ... ›
- Brazil Passes 50,000 Coronavirus Deaths as Global Cases Top 9 ... ›
By Emily Grubert
Natural gas is a versatile fossil fuel that accounts for about a third of U.S. energy use. Although it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, natural gas is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Reducing emissions from the natural gas system is especially challenging because natural gas is used roughly equally for electricity, heating, and industrial applications.
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6bd9fda1316965a9ba24dd60fd9cc34d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3KaMnkmf0tc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
What RNG Is and Why it Matters<p>Most equipment that uses energy can only use a single kind of fuel, but the fuel might come from different resources. For example, you can't charge your computer with gasoline, but it can run on electricity generated from coal, natural gas or solar power.</p><p>Natural gas is almost pure methane, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/" target="_blank">currently sourced</a> from raw, fossil natural gas produced from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php" target="_blank">deposits deep underground</a>. But methane could come from renewable resources, too.</p><p><span></span>Two main methane sources could be used to make RNG. First is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">biogenic methane</a>, produced by bacteria that digest organic materials in manure, landfills and wastewater. Wastewater treatment plants, landfills and dairy farms have captured and used biogenic methane as an energy resource for <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">decades</a>, in a form usually called <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php" target="_blank">biogas</a>.</p><p>Some biogenic methane is generated naturally when organic materials break down without oxygen. Burning it for energy can be beneficial for the climate if doing so prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere.</p>
Renewable Isn’t Always Sustainable<p>If RNG could be a renewable replacement for fossil natural gas, why not move ahead? Consumers have shown that they are <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/green-power.html" target="_blank">willing to buy renewable electricity</a>, so we might expect similar enthusiasm for RNG.</p><p>The key issue is that methane isn't just a fuel – it's also a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_overview.php" target="_blank">potent greenhouse gas</a> that contributes to climate change. Any methane that is manufactured intentionally, whether from biogenic or other sources, will contribute to climate change if it enters the atmosphere.</p><p>And <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204" target="_blank">releases</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.029" target="_blank">will happen</a>, from newly built production systems and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-methane-emissions-matter-to-climate-change-5-questions-answered-122684" target="_blank">existing, leaky transportation and user infrastructure</a>. For example, the moment you smell gas before the pilot light on a stove lights the ring? That's methane leakage, and it contributes to climate change.</p><p>To be clear, RNG is almost certainly better for the climate than fossil natural gas because byproducts of burning RNG won't contribute to climate change. But doing somewhat better than existing systems is no longer enough to respond to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923" target="_blank">urgency</a> of climate change. The world's <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank">primary international body on climate change</a> suggests we need to decarbonize by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.</p>
Scant Climate Benefits<p><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">My recent research</a> suggests that for a system large enough to displace a lot of fossil natural gas, RNG is probably not as good for the climate as <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">is publicly claimed</a>. Although RNG has lower climate impact than its fossil counterpart, likely high demand and methane leakage mean that it probably will contribute to climate change. In contrast, renewable sources such as wind and solar energy do not <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/" target="_blank">emit climate pollution directly</a>.</p><p>What's more, creating a large RNG system would require building mostly new production infrastructure, since RNG comes from different sources than fossil natural gas. Such investments are both long-term commitments and opportunity costs. They would devote money, political will and infrastructure investments to RNG instead of alternatives that could achieve a zero greenhouse gas emission goal.</p><p>When climate change first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html" target="_blank">broke into the political conversation</a> in the late 1980s, investing in long-lived systems with low but non-zero greenhouse gas emissions was still compatible with aggressive climate goals. Now, zero greenhouse gas emissions is the target, and my research suggests that large deployments of RNG likely won't meet that goal.</p>
- Solar Employs More Workers Than Coal, Oil and Natural Gas ... ›
- The Truth About Natural Gas: A 'Green' Bridge to Hell - EcoWatch ›
- Why Natural Gas Is a Bridge Fuel to Nowhere - EcoWatch ›