Monday, May 18, 2020


Amid reports of White House clashes with CDC, experts raise alarms about lack of coronavirus screening at airports



Hunter Walker White House Correspondent, Yahoo News•May 16, 2020

VIDEO
https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-screening-airports-144105500.html
The future of flight: “recognize that there are going to be social distancing practices at the airport"


WASHINGTON — As the nation begins to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic, some people are looking to the skies — and experts don’t necessarily like what they see, arguing there are not enough safeguards in place to protect passengers and crew.

While air travel has fallen sharply due to the virus, the airports are open and planes are flying both domestically and internationally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued travel guidelines encouraging air passengers to wear face coverings, “keep 6 feet of physical distance from others” and only board planes for essential travel. However, these guidelines are merely suggestions.

There is no requirement for masks, and there have been multiple reports of crowded conditions in airports and on planes, which have left passengers alarmed. The Transportation Security Administration, which screens passengers and luggage at airports, has also experienced over 560 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and six deaths from the illness.

Despite these concerns, there are currently no coronavirus screening procedures for domestic air travelers, and a congressional investigation has also raised questions about the level of screening being conducted for international passengers. Speaking in the Oval Office on April 28, President Trump told reporters his administration is working on implementing a procedure for temperature checks and COVID-19 tests for air travelers.

“We’re also setting up a system where we do some testing, and we’re working with the airlines on that,” Trump said.
A TSA officer wears a protective mask while screening travelers at Orlando International Airport. (Paul Hennessy/Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images)

According to a May 6 government document reviewed by Yahoo News, the CDC was “developing a tool for predicting risk of importation of COVID-19 among international travelers” and meeting with the White House National Security Council “to discuss strategies for screening arriving international passengers from countries with substantial COVID-19 transmission.”

However, there have been reports of discord between the CDC and the White House. On May 9, USA Today reported CDC officials were overruled by the White House after they raised concerns about a potential plan to establish temperature checks at the airports. While some COVID-19 patients do have high fevers, many do not and others are entirely asymptomatic.

USA Today’s report included an email Dr. Martin Cetron, the CDC’s director of global mitigation and quarantine, sent to officials with the Department of Homeland Security criticizing the temperature checks as “a poorly designed control and detention strategy.”

Cetron, the CDC and DHS did not respond to requests for comment. The White House did not respond to questions about the reported disagreements from the CDC or whether the Trump administration believes temperature checks are an adequate screening measure for airports.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the chairman of the House oversight subcommittee on economic and consumer policy, has investigated coronavirus screening procedures at airports. Earlier this week, the Illinois Democrat told Yahoo News he was concerned by the report that the White House is pursuing a temperature screening plan over the objections of CDC officials.

“The White House has been ignoring and sidelining America’s public health experts at the CDC, instead relying on nonexpert political appointees to make public health decisions,” Krishnamoorthi said. “I am troubled by reports that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could raise this public health concern and be essentially overruled by presidential aides. The desire to lure Americans back into traveling by making them feel like they are safe cannot outweigh the need to actually keep this country safe.”
(D) Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi on Capitol Hill last year. (Jacquelyn Martin/Getty Images)

Krishnamoorthi has previously raised concerns about what he described as “lax” screening procedures for international travelers coming into the United States from coronavirus hot spots in March as the pandemic exploded around the globe. Trump has repeatedly pointed to restrictions he imposed on travelers from China — where the virus originated — on Jan. 31 as evidence of his strong efforts to curb its spread in the United States.

However, the restrictions on China contained exemptions that allowed over 400,000 people to subsequently travel from that country to the United States. And on May 7, Krishnamoorthi’s subcommittee released the results of an investigation that focused on two other early coronavirus hot spots — Italy and South Korea. Krishnamoorthi said he believes Trump has focused on “rhetoric and bluster rather than actually effective screenings.”


“Just from what we found with Italy and South Korea, there was no border closing. There was no screening. Unfortunately, the lack of screening probably had some very serious consequences at a time when cases were exponentially rising in the United States.”

Krishnamoorthi’s investigation, which included extensive briefings from officials, found that the White House National Security Council’s Policy Coordination Committees decided in March to rely on South Korean and Italian officials to screen passengers in those countries who were headed to the United States. The probe further found the U.S. had “limited” oversight for those screenings in Italy and that only 69 passengers were prevented from coming to the U.S. from those two countries in March. Once they arrived, the investigation found passengers entering from the two countries did not receive additional health screenings.

“Potentially thousands and thousands of people came across without screenings” from what were two of the leading coronavirus hot spots at the time, Krishnamoorthi told Yahoo News. “It doesn’t take a lot to believe that folks came over and seeded further outbreaks here in this country.”
An Italian Red Cross volunteer measures the temperature of a colleague in Gavirate, Italy. (Mattia Ozbot/Soccrates Images/Getty Images)

Jonathan Ullyot, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council, responded to questions about Krishnamoorthi’s investigation with a statement touting the government’s steps to screen international arrivals earlier this year.

“The reality is that the United States government took early and decisive action to mitigate the risk from global hot spots, including China, Iran, South Korea, and the Schengen area of Europe,” Ullyot wrote. “After restricting travel from China on January 31 … the security directive put forth by the administration required enhanced medical screenings for all passengers before they departed on flights to the United States from Northern Italy and South Korea.”

According to Ullyot, the screenings in Italy and South Korea “included checking the passenger’s temperature, visual observations to detect signs of illness, and questionnaires.” While Ullyot did not dispute Krishnamoorthi’s contention that the U.S. relied on officials in those countries to conduct the screenings and that few passengers were denied boarding, he said “U.S. mission staff visited airports” in both countries to “observe these screening procedures.”

A senior Trump administration official, who requested not to be named, said all international arrivals to the United States are subject to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screenings that are following CDC guidelines. The official explained that those guidelines require CBP officers to refer travelers “to the CDC, DHS contract medical screeners, or local health authorities for health screening” if they are exhibiting symptoms or have traveled from countries that have experienced major outbreaks.

According to the official, the CBP has “established processes to identify travelers who have traveled to the United States directly or indirectly from areas that are experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks.”
Randy Babbitt, former administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty images)

Domestic air passengers, however, are treated differently.

“With regard to domestic travel, there’s not more screening beyond what TSA normally does,” Krishnamoorthi said.

He said that lack of screening for domestic travelers is particularly worrisome as areas of the country are beginning to lift lockdown restrictions. He suggested this could lead to a situation where business people “go back and start traveling” and then “transport these cases everywhere.”

“We have to look at the science of it more closely, and we have to develop a more precise way of screening,” Krishnamoorthi said.

Randy Babbitt, a former administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, said the lack of new screening procedures is not as much of a problem right now since “nobody’s flying.” However, he said it will become a pressing issue as the country reopens and airports become more crowded.

“People are going to start flying and as it ramps back up, that becomes a different question,” Babbitt told Yahoo News.

Babbitt further explained that one difficulty with establishing comprehensive procedures for airports is that so many different government agencies are involved in air travel. However, he pointed to proposals generated by Stonebriar Strategy Group Thought Leadership Initiative, a nonprofit consultancy, as a realistic potential road map.

Howard Thrall, the president and senior partner of the group, said the organization is comprised of multiple retired consultants and executives who have worked in the industry. According to Thrall, a veteran executive who has worked for multiple aviation and aerospace companies, the group came together because they were “totally amazed” a coronavirus airport screening system has not yet been established.

“This is really a pro bono exercise for a bunch of old graybeards,” Thrall said.
Terminal 1 at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The Stonebriar Strategy Group’s proposal calls for screening perimeters to be established outside airports, where rapid COVID-19 tests, questionnaires and temperature checks could be administered to travelers and workers. Setting up a screening perimeter would mean that even if passengers ended up in close proximity during boarding or on planes, they could have a higher degree of confidence those around them were not contagious.

Along with addressing safety concerns, Thrall said implementing these screenings could help the economy since aviation is a substantial part of the nation’s gross domestic product and boosting consumer confidence is crucial to returning the industry to normal levels. He pointed to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, when the TSA was formed and security screening procedures were transformed, as evidence that airport procedures can quickly be revamped.

The Stonebriar Strategy Group’s detailed proposal estimated it would cost approximately $6.8 million per airport, per year, to establish coronavirus screening perimeters. With approximately 5,000 public airports in the country, that would mean a total cost of about $34 billion.

However, Thrall argued that cost is realistic relative to the urgent need and the trillions of dollars the government is spending to address the coronavirus.

“That’s why we wrote it up. It wasn’t happening and it could happen. This is not a big deal,” Thrall said. “I mean, it’s not going to be free by any means, but this is very, very manageable.”
'Everybody Was Sick': Inside an ICE Detention Center
Tammy La Gorce,
The New York Times•May 17, 2020
  
A drive-by protest supporting the release of ICE detainees at a detention center in Elizabeth, N.J., May 1, 2020. (Andrew White/The New York Times)

Last month, Makalay Tarawally propped her 2-month-old in front of her phone so that his father could meet him for the first time, virtually. As a blood technician for a COVID-19 hospital unit, Tarawally knew how careful she needed to be.

From her aunt’s house in Edison, New Jersey, she called a room at the Red Roof Inn. The father of her two children, Abdul Massaquoi, was isolating there because of possible exposure to the coronavirus. He waved through the phone screen.

Massaquoi, 44, was stuck at the hotel because he had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last fall while on his way to work as a truck driver for Macy’s. Accused of forging his green card in 2018, Massaquoi was arrested after missing a court date in 2019. According to his lawyer, a summons had been sent to his old address and not forwarded to his new home.

Massaquoi had just been released from the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey, where 18 people had tested positive for the virus; a nonprofit was paying for his stay at the Red Roof so he could make sure he had not been infected.

The environment at the detention center, said Massaquoi, a native of Sierra Leone, was stressful. “Everybody was sick,” he said, “and we were all right next to each other.”

ICE detention facilities are hotbeds for the virus, with 85 cases already discovered in New York and New Jersey. As of May 11, 36 people tested positive in New Jersey. Four staff members at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny, one of the state’s four detention centers, have died from COVID-19.

The American Civil Liberties Union has referred to the country’s detainee population as “sitting ducks.” The nonprofit Government Accountability Project recently estimated that almost all of those held in ICE facilities could be infected by the 90th day of a COVID outbreak.

Like jails, detention centers are faced with tough decisions as to how to keep their dense populations safe. Since the coronavirus outbreak in March, ICE has suspended social visits and staggered meals and recreation times, and is monitoring detainees for COVID-19 regularly at all of its facilities, a spokesman said. One of the agency’s “highest priorities is the health and safety of those in our custody,” he continued.

To that end, ICE has also released about 900 people since March. Detention bookings are down by 60% compared to last year’s data. About 30,000 people are currently being held nationwide, the lowest number since the beginning of the Trump administration.

But that number is still too high, according to the more than 4,000 physicians who sent a letter to ICE demanding the release of even more people “to avoid preventable deaths.” As of May 11, ICE reported that of the almost 1,700 detainees who had been tested, roughly half had received positive results for the virus.

The pandemic has become a new front in the debate over immigration, pitting opponents of President Donald Trump’s policies against an administration trying to curtail migration, both illegal and legal, and more aggressively enforce immigration laws.

In New York and New Jersey, activists are working to protect and, ideally, release all ICE detainees. Some are writing letters to Gov. Phil Murphy, demanding that he issue an emergency order to vacate all facilities. Others are participating in regular drive-by protests all over New Jersey, honking their horns in front of the jails from cars plastered with homemade #FreeThemAll posters.

“It’s always been a crisis, but I would say now it’s much worse,” said Rosa Santana, program director of First Friends of New Jersey and New York, a nonprofit.

Two of New Jersey’s detention centers, the Bergen County Jail in Hackensack and the Hudson County Correctional Facility, house ICE detainees mostly found in New York. The other two, the Elizabeth Detention Center in Elizabeth and the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, mainly hold immigrants detained in New Jersey. All four jails receive people apprehended at the United States/Mexico border or at points of entrance like airports. Some are transferred in from other states.

Before the virus hit, about 2,200 detainees were held in New Jersey’s four facilities, sleeping in bunk beds and sharing bathrooms, Santana said. Now, following new recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several lawsuits, about 1,100 remain. They stay in cells up to 23 hours a day to reduce time spent in communal areas, with sick detainees sent to separate units to be quarantined.

Edwin Tineo, who spent 13 months in the Hudson County Correctional Facility, witnessed a hunger strike before he was released in March. The protest was in response to a lack of supplies like hand soap and toilet paper, but also a lack of information.

“Nobody was telling us nothing” when the pandemic started, said Tineo, 30, a husband and father of two who lives in Fresh Meadows, Queens, and worked as an HVAC installer before ICE detained him in 2019. “Being there was the most stressful thing I’ve ever experienced in my life,” he said. “It was like being blindfolded.”

In March, ICE started to evaluate its detained population for those who might be at “higher risk for severe illness as a result of COVID-19,” a spokesman said, “to determine whether continued detention was appropriate.” This resulted in the release of hundreds of detainees.

Until recently, Massaquoi, the Macy’s truck driver, had somehow slipped through the cracks, despite exhibiting a number of underlying health conditions, according to his lawyer, John P. Leschak, who was hired to take on Massaquoi’s case by the same nonprofit that paid for his quarantine at the hotel.

“The man suffers from hypertension, which is the leading comorbidity in COVID cases in New York and New Jersey, and he also has asthma and is prediabetic,” Leschak said. “And other than a minor offense from 20 years ago, he had nothing on his criminal record.”

But Massaquoi was one of the lucky ones. He tested negative for the virus, and after an uneventful quarantine at the Red Roof Inn, was finally reunited with his family, in the flesh, this month. He was especially moved by his newborn.

“I had been thinking I wasn’t ever going to be able to see him; I cried when I saw him,” he said. “And my other son, he was so happy to have his Daddy back. I’m praying that everything is OK. I don’t know what’s going to come up. But I worry every day.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2020 The New York Times Company




FORBES WORLDS 50 BILLIONAIRES AND A MILLIONAIRE



The richest people on Earth are not immune to the coronavirus. As the pandemic tightened its grip on Europe and America, global equity markets imploded, tanking many fortunes. When we finalized this list, Forbes counted 2,095 billionaires, 58 fewer than a year ago and 226 fewer than just 12 days earlier, when we initially calculated these net worths. Of the billionaires who remain, 51% are poorer than they were last year. In raw terms, the world’s billionaires are worth $8 trillion, down $700 billion from 2019.
THE 1% OF THE 1% ARE NOT POORER THEY JUST ARE A BIT SHORT OF CASH RIGHT NOW
PS ONE OF THOSE ON THE COVER IS A MILLIONAIRE NOT A BILLIONAIRE 
  

Opinion: Dud stock picks, bad industry bets, vast underperformance — it’s the end of the Warren Buffett era TIME TO CONSUME NOT SAVE

Howard Gold's No-Nonsense Investing
Published: May 16, 2020
By Howard Gold

The chairman of Berkshire Hathaway seems to prefer the S&P 500 to his own company’s stock

Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Bloomberg News/Landov


Who is the Greatest of All Time? Michael or LeBron? Willie or the Babe? Aretha or Ol’ Blue Eyes?

When it comes to investing, Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B, -0.98%, is unquestionably the greatest who ever lived, posting an extraordinary record over more than five decades. From 1965 through 2018, Berkshire racked up a 20.5% compound annual return, more than double that of the S&P 500 SPX, +0.39%, including dividends.

Buffett also is a beloved multibillionaire in an age when the superrich are vilified. His homespun wisdom and Midwestern humility have made him the most sacred of all cows to a business media hungry for wit and personality. His paeans to free-market capitalism, along with his Democratic politics, haven’t hurt him with that group, either.

Read:Warren Buffett’s ‘outdated view’: One longtime fan is considering dumping his entire Berkshire stake


But now, after profoundly underperforming the S&P 500 throughout the entire 11-year bull market, it’s fair to ask whether Buffett is still, well, Buffett. Even at the company’s virtual annual meeting, held in Omaha on May 2, some questions by shareholders, curated by CNBC’s Becky Quick, struck this listener as unusually sharp.

At times, Buffett seemed uncomfortable amid PowerPoint slides and the absence of his longtime friend and business partner, Charlie Munger, who didn’t make the trip. His bullish comments about America seemed oddly discordant while a pandemic ravages our economy.


Meanwhile, intimations of mortality hung over the proceedings. Munger is 96 and Buffett turns 90 in August. The two, Buffett said, “are not going any place voluntarily, but we probably will go someplace involuntarily before that long.” Then he quickly added, “Charlie’s in good health, incidentally. I’m in good health.”
Questions put to Buffett

No wonder shareholders asked about how Berkshire will fare without Buffett and Munger at the helm.

The right question, however, is how Berkshire is doing with them. Consider:

• From March 9, 2009, the last bear market low, through Feb. 19, 2020, the recent bull market peak, Berkshire‘s Class B shares surged 396%. Sounds impressive, but Berkshire trailed the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust SPY, +0.46% and Vanguard Total Stock Market Index ETF VTI, +0.60% by more than 100 percentage points, after dividends were reinvested. (So far in 2020, Berkshire stock has lost nearly 25%, lagging those index ETFs by more than 10 percentage points.)


• As of March 31, Berkshire had more than $130 billion in cash, earning almost nothing. Yet even amid the coronavirus crash, Buffett and Munger haven’t spent any of it on the big deals that made them famous. Buffett attributed that to the Federal Reserve’s multitrillion-dollar intervention, which dwarfed whatever Berkshire could do.

• Berkshire won’t spend any cash to pay a dividend, while it’s happy to collect dividends from the companies it owns. Even a modest dividend yield would have helped Berkshire shareholders narrow the gap with the S&P 500 over the past 11 years.

• Berkshire’s operating businesses are doing well and throw off tons of cash. But this mishmash of insurance, consumer products, energy, utilities and railroads just doesn’t have the growth that forward-looking investors now demand. As oil prices are likely to stay depressed for some time, the energy business’ prospects are particularly grim.

• Several recent investments, like Kraft Heinz KHC, +1.38%, Occidental Petroleum OXY, +0.43% and airline stocks (which Berkshire sold in April) have been duds, and it’s hard to imagine what would propel those stocks higher. Apple AAPL, -0.59%, the largest of Berkshire’s equity investments, is among the few technology stocks in an investment portfolio so full of blue-chip banking names it could almost be a financial sector ETF.

I emailed those questions to Berkshire but got no response by deadline.
Index fund versus Berkshire stock

Buffett himself acknowledged how tough it will be for Berkshire to beat the S&P 500 from here on. “Berkshire is about as sound as any single investment can be,” he told the annual meeting, “but I would not want to bet my life on whether we beat the S&P 500 over the next 10 years.”

“In my view, for most people, the best thing to do is to own the S&P 500 index fund,” he said, echoing past statements.

“I would make no promise to anybody that we will do better than the S&P 500. But what I will promise them is that I’ve got 99% of my money in Berkshire.”

But not apparently his heirs’ money. “I haven’t changed my will and it directs that my widow would have 90% of the funds in index funds,” he said.

Follow the money — the future money. Warren Buffett is saying, almost in so many words, that an S&P 500 index fund is a better investment now than Berkshire Hathaway’s stock. There simply aren’t many new tricks this 90-year-old can learn, especially when growth investing, indexing and trillions of dollars of Fed buying power have stolen much of Berkshire’s thunder.

More than anyone else, he must know he’s had a marvelous run but that the curtain is coming down on the Buffett era. These days, even on Broadway, the show won’t go on.

Howard R. Gold is a MarketWatch columnist. He owns no shares in Berkshire Hathaway. Follow him on Twitter @howardrgold.
Microsoft, Visa and others worth combined $11.5 trillion want Congress to include climate in COVID-19 recovery plan


Solar cells are joined together as solar panels are manufactured at SunSpark Technology Inc. in Riverside, Calif. A business effort known as LEAD on Climate wants Congress to put Americans into clean-energy jobs as part of the COVID-19 recovery.

 Bloomberg News/Landov
Chief executives and other representatives from more than 330 businesses, including Capital One COF, -1.91% , General Mills GIS, +0.45% , Microsoft MSFT, +1.45% , Nike NKE, +0.50% , Salesforce CRM, +2.59% , Visa V, +1.43% and more are calling on bipartisan federal lawmakers to build back a better economy from COVID-19 by infusing resilient climate solutions.
The businesses, in lobbying Congress Wednesday through an effort they call LEAD on Climate 2020, represent combined annual revenues of more than $1 trillion and a shared market valuation of nearly $11.5 trillion. They employee more than 3 million people. The group, supported by sustainable investing advocates Ceres, claims they are the largest ever to advance a call to action from the business community to Congress on climate change.
House Democrats unveiled their opening bid Tuesday in the next debate on Capitol Hill over how to fight the coronavirus and revive the economy. The sweeping bill, projected to cost a little over $3 trillion, was set to be voted on at the end of the week. The proposal includes bolstering the direct payments program put in place in the $1.8 trillion coronavirus bill passed in late March, additional monies for state and local governments, and extending the expiration date for some unemployment benefits related to the pandemic.
The businesses behind the pledge want Congress to work toward putting Americans into clean-energy jobs, as well as foster an accelerated transition to a net-zero emissions economy by 2050 or sooner and provide more investment in sustainable infrastructure. The business leaders also urge Congress to consider a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and setting a carbon price. Setting a market-based carbon price remains a policy sticking point in a divided quest for a solution to man-made accelerating climate change, although has been increasingly, if slowly, adopted.
Some economists believe that raising the cost of burning coal, oil and gas can be a cost-effective way to curb emissions. But countries using the practice have found it politically difficult to set prices that are high enough to spur truly deep reductions in emissions. Many carbon pricing programs today are fairly modest.
Several participants LEAD on Climate call for plans that put the U.S. on a 1.5° Celsius warming target, the more aggressive end of a range of temperatures deemed a manageable level of average warming in coming decades by the Paris Climate accord and other initiatives. The Paris pact, for instance, has called for slowing to at least 2°C by 2050.
The LEAD on Climate businesses include more than a dozen Fortune 500 firms as well as trade associations, including the skiing-tourism sector, medium and small businesses from all 50 states. The companies and investors calling for climate action as part of economic recovery efforts span across the American economy, including retailers, manufacturers, health-care services, food and beverage companies, outdoors industries, technology companies and energy providers.
The high level of participation is notable given the disruption most of the companies and investors are experiencing due to the economic collapse, as well as the current social distancing constraints on in-person advocacy.
This increased corporate and investor policy engagement comes at a time when the consequences of the climate crisis have never been clearer or more dire. Last year, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were at their highest levels in at least the last 800,000 years, and the World Meteorological Organization recently found that the last decade was the hottest on record.
As U.S. and global emissions have steadily grown over the years, so has corporate and investor ambition to reduce emissions even amidst the current pandemic. In April, General Mills committed to source 100% renewable electricity by 2030 after joining the RE100 global corporate initiative, while both the clothing brand Eileen Fisher and the commercial real estate company JLL had their ambitious science-based targets approved by the Science Based Target initiative to limit their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 1.5 degrees Celsius ambition of the Paris Agreement. All three belong to LEAD on Climate.
Also announced Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York Democrat, will co-head the climate policy group that presidential contender Joe Biden has set up in collaboration with his one-time rival Bernie Sanders, his campaign confirmed on Wednesday. The panel’s other co-chair will be former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Biden ally who helped craft the Paris climate accord when he was President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State. Ocasio-Cortez and co-writers of a proposed New Green Deal share some of the objectives of the LEAD on Climate effort, including green-job promotion.
Below, select quotes from the participants:
“Today we have a health crisis, an economic crisis and a climate crisis all happening at once. The best solutions will tackle all three together. We have a distinct opportunity at this unique moment in history to define what we want our future to look like,” said Patrick Flynn, vice president for sustainability at Salesforce.
“At Nestlé, our ambition to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is at the heart of our strategy to build a resilient business,” said Meg Villarreal, government affairs manager at the food giant.
“We urge Congress to enact policies that leverage private sector investment and innovation, such as a carbon dividend,” said Hannon Armstrong HASI, +3.62% Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Eckel. “This is how we turn the tide on the climate crisis and propel our country toward a thriving economy that is good for people and the planet.” Hannon Armstrong is the first U.S. public company that provides capital to companies in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainable infrastructure markets.
“Policymakers must ensure that the decisions that are being taken today to rebuild our economy also factor in the dire climate consequences that are not too far behind,” said Mindy Lubber, CEO and president at Ceres. “They have the potential to reshape a new resilient economy in fundamental ways that prevent the next climate-fueled crisis.”
“Through smart investments in infrastructure and clean energy, we can create and build on industries and pave the way for family-sustaining careers, all while keeping our families healthy and making our communities more resilient for decades to come,” said Rep. Kathy Castor, a Democrat of Florida, and chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
“Cement and ultimately, concrete, is a fundamental part of society, literally creating the foundation and structure of every city and community in the United States,” said Jamie Gentoso, CEO, U.S. Cement at LafargeHolcim. “As the leader in cement manufacturing in the U.S., LafargeHolcim actively seeks ways to decrease our carbon footprint. In participating with such a diverse, accomplished group of companies, I believe our combined experience, expertise and advocacy efforts will prompt Congress to take action on the climate crisis.”
“In the face of a global pandemic, America’s farmers have displayed tremendous resolve to ensure we remain fed and fueled—but grower profitability is at even greater risk due to the economic impact of the virus,” said David Perry, CEO of Indigo Ag. “By paying farmers for storing carbon in their soil we can create a new income stream for farmers during this challenging time, while leveraging one of the most scalable, affordable and immediate opportunities to address climate change: agriculture. Indigo is proud to stand by industry-leading companies to encourage Congress to build back better with climate positive stimulus funding, including incentives for agricultural carbon sequestration.”
“Tiffany & Co. TIF, -0.21% has long been committed to operating in a manner that respects both people and the planet,” said Anisa Kamadoli Costa, chief sustainability officer at Tiffany & Co. “Businesses must continue to lead in this way but cannot tackle climate change alone. We need smart public policies to advance our economy while protecting society’s most vulnerable citizens and facilitating a net-zero emissions future.”
“The ski industry has been increasingly vocal about the need for climate action at the federal level. Now, the opportunity exists to rebuild our economy and future focused on renewable, clean energy,” said Kelly Pawlak, president and CEO, National Ski Areas Association. “Ski areas have paved the way for other small and rural businesses by installing and investing in wind and solar energy, and making broad-scale change to their operations to reduce their carbon emissions. This pandemic has given us a preview of the havoc climate change can wreak on our industry, and our way of life. It’s time to raise our collective voice and advocate for the policies that ensure a sustainable future.” 
This is how fast Americans are spending their stimulus checks — and here’s a breakdown of what they’re buying 
Published: May 16, 2020 By Andrew Keshner

Economists looked at the spending and saving habits of more than 1,600 people who received their stimulus check by April 21
When Americans received stimulus checks during the Great Recession, studies indicated many spent at least of portion of their money on cars.
During the 2008 stimulus program, up to 90% of the rise in durable good spending had to do with auto spending, according to previous research by the American Economic Association. (At that time, the government paid an individual between $300 and $600 and couples received between $600 and $1,200. The government paid $300 per child as well.)
When Americans received their $1,200 stimulus check, as many have used it to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, according to new research by a team of economists. In late March, lawmakers passed the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, which included $290 billion in direct payments. The program allowed $1,200 for people making less than $75,000 and couples making less than $150,000. It also paid $500 per child.
‘Given the size of the 2020 stimulus checks, we might have expected large impacts on categories like automobile spending, electronics, appliances, and home furnishings.’
“Given the size of the 2020 stimulus checks, we might have expected large impacts on categories like automobile spending, electronics, appliances, and home furnishings,” according to economists at Columbia University, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago and the University of Southern Denmark.
“Instead, it seems that individuals are catching up with rent and bill payments as well as engaging in spending on food, personal care, and nondurables.”
Looking at the spending and saving habits of more than 1,600 people who received their stimulus check by April 21 in an approximate 6,000-person sample, the researchers found:
• In the first three days after the stimulus-check receipt, spending increased between $50 to $75 apiece on expenditures like food and non-durable goods, a category that includes supplies like laundry detergent, pens, paper and other items with a shorter life span.
• During that same time, the purchase of durable goods increased by $20 in those first three days. This category includes cars, appliances, furniture and others things meant for longer use.
• On the whole, households spent around one quarter to one third of their stimulus check money within 10 days of receipt.
• If people had less than $500 in their account, they went through almost half of their money within 10 days. People with over $3,000 in their accounts had essentially no extra spending after getting their check.
• A person who made less than $1,000 a month was twice as likely to spend money after getting their check, compared to someone making at least $5,000, researchers noted. That fits a historical pattern from past stimulus programs, the study said.
In the wake of stimulus bills during 2008 and 2001, “households with either larger declines in net worth or households with lower levels of assets also tend to respond more strongly to stimulus checks.”
It’s too soon to see what the stimulus checks accomplish for families and the economy as a whole, Columbia Business School Professor R. A. Farrokhnia, the study’s co-author, told MarketWatch. “What we can tell for fact is consumer behavior is different,” compared to their 2008 stimulus spending habits.
‘Household spending on food delivery was one category in particular that increased following the receipt of a stimulus check.’
Researchers looked at anonymous data from users at SaverLife, a financial-technology company that incentivizes savings through things like cash rewards.
Farrokhnia noted many have been hit hard in the past two months, but didn’t necessarily find it alarming that more money was going to food, rent, bill and nondurables compared to durable goods. After all, he noted, a family might not want a stranger coming in to install a new washing machine or they might not have a reason to buy a new car with fewer places to visit.
Farrokhnia and his fellow authors wrote that many outlets for consumer spending were shuttered by government orders, but restaurants stayed open for pickups and deliveries. “Household spending on food delivery was one category in particular that increased following the receipt of a stimulus check,” the study said.
Time will tell how people use all their stimulus money, Farrokhnia said, noting the spending trailed off 10 days from receipt; many people might be holding onto the rest to see what the future holds, he added. However, he does wonder whether these $1,200 checks will be enough “to spur consumer spending to fuel economic recovery.”
The study, distributed this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, is another look at how the coronavirus outbreak and its economic consequences suddenly left many American families cash strapped — especially those making lower incomes.
On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said 40% of people in households making less than $40,000 per year in February lost their jobs in March. When April’s rent came due, nearly one-third of renters struggled to pay it, data said.
The Internal Revenue Service has distributed more than 128 million checks and paid over $218 billion as of early May.
The new study comes as lawmakers debate another bill addressing the outbreak’s economic repercussions. The Democrat-backed $3 trillion HEROES act would, among other things, authorize another round of $1,200 direct payments per eligible individual. Payouts would be capped at $6,000 per household.
It’s scheduled for a Friday vote in the Democratic-majority House of Representatives.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, is already brushing off the bill, calling it “the aspirations of the Democratic majority in the House.”