FUTURE WAR WILL BE IN THE ARCTIC

Media repeats Kremlin anti-fracking claims—while ignoring Russia’s promotion of climate denial

Climate skeptics have revived an old claim that anti-fracking campaigns around the world have been bankrolled by the Kremlin.

By

 Adam Barnett

 -

March 28, 2022

SOURCEDeSmogBlog

In their latest attempt to use the Russian invasion of Ukraine to argue for more fossil fuel extraction, climate sceptics have revived an old claim that anti-fracking campaigns around the world have been bankrolled by the Kremlin. 

This claim is being amplified by mainstream conservative newspapers. “Did Putin plot with eco-warriors to halt Britain’s fracking and keep us all hooked on his gas?” asked Guy Walters in the Daily Mail. Days later, coal baron and climate sceptic Matt Ridley wrote in The Sun: “FRACK NEWS: How lying Putin spent millions spreading fake news about fracking.” Similar allegations have appeared in both The Telegraph and the Daily Express. 

None of these articles provide evidence for the claims, which rely on an unsubstantiated remark from 2014 by the then NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that Russia had “actively engaged” with environmental groups opposing shale gas “to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas”. Rasmussen, a supporter of fracking, declined to give evidence at the time, saying: “That is my interpretation.” 

Russia may have expressed opposition to fracking and covered protests against shale gas extraction on its state-run outlets, but it’s never been proven that the Kremlin has any ties, financial or otherwise, to the groups. Grassroots protests influenced the UK’s decision to impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing—fracking—for shale gas in 2019, an effective ban climate skeptics are now calling to be overturned.  

But while conservative media is repeating old and dubious claims about Russia funding anti-fracking groups, it ignores the mountain of evidence that the Kremlin has promoted climate science deniers and opponents of climate action—including some paid by fossil fuel interests—through its western-facing propaganda outlet RT.

RT and climate denial

The channel RT, formerly Russia Today, had its license revoked by Ofcom this month over its biased coverage of the war in Ukraine, and Google has blocked its videos from appearing on YouTube. But there are numerous examples still available online of the outlet promoting climate science denial. 

These include articles plugging the work of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which is currently working with the Net Zero Scrutiny Group to use Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to demand more fossil fuel extraction.  

According to research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released in November, the RT website —along with fellow Russian outlet Sputnik News—was one of ten online sources responsible for 69 percent of climate change denial content on Facebook over the previous year.

Notably, RT’s response to the finding neither rejected the charge of climate denial nor said it accepted climate science, but instead attacked CCDH’s methodology. RT deputy editor in chief Anna Belkina told the Washington Post that RT does not “shy away from tackling the global concern of climate change”, before adding, tellingly, “nor would we disregard the variety of views essential to a healthy public discourse on its effects”.

Deniers promoted 

In January, just weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, RT published an article by Rob Lyons, a columnist for libertarian website Spiked, headlined: “How climate change alarmism has turned into pure fantasy.”

Spiked regularly platforms writers opposed to action on climate change, and has received at least £227,500 ($300,000) from the US oil billionaire Koch family. 

In February, Lyons published a further piece on RT, titled “The relentless pursuit of ‘net zero’ is what is causing the energy crisis”. 

In October, RT ran an interview with long-standing climate science denier Christopher Monckton, in which he said “there has been no global warming for seven and a half years”, and “the imagined disasters from warmer worldwide weather are imaginary”. 

He used the interview to promote a GWPF climate denial event at last year’s COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow. This was conducted by former UKIP leader Paul Nuttall, who concluded by defending Monckton as an “important voice” in the climate “debate”. 

Polar bears and ‘thought police’

RT has also platformed the most outlandish climate denial propaganda. In March 2021, RT promoted the conspiracy theory that governments are planning to use the climate crisis to impose a “climate lockdown”—a claim spread by climate deniers during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue think tank. 

In November 2019, RT published a piece titled “The REAL inconvenient truth: Polar bears thriving in spite of climate change, but saying this gets scientists fired”. 

The piece was written by Susan Crockford, a self-styled polar bear expert who has produced research for the GWPF. Crockford has repeatedly claimed the scientific consensus that fossil fuel emissions are the dominant cause of climate change is based on “failed science”. 

In 2012 it was revealed that Crockford had received around £570 ($750) a month from the Heartland Institute, a right-wing US think tank and major funder of climate denial. 

In October 2017, RT gave favourable coverage to remarks by former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a GWPF conference, in a piece headlined: “‘Thought-police scientists shutting down factual climate change debate’—Ex-Aussie PM.” 

The piece explains that the term “thought police” is a reference to George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty Four, an ironic observation to appear in a Russian propaganda outlet.

‘Climategate’ coverage

RT has also seized on high-profile attempts to discredit climate science, including the so-called “Climategate” scandal in 2009, in which emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia were stolen and selectively leaked ahead of the UN COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. 

A November 2009 piece on RT titled “Global Tricks: Climate change we can’t believe in?” claims that, while experts and world leaders gather at the conference, “the scientific community is split over global warming”. It concludes that “the theory supporting global warming has taken a significant blow”.

The piece links to an article in the English edition of Pravda, the Russian state-owned newspaper famous for its propaganda during the Soviet period, headlined: “‘Climategate’ Exposes the Global Warming Hoax”. 

Another RT piece on the same subject from November 2009, titled “Global Warning: [sic] Leaked ‘Climate Fraud’ emails under probe”, ends with a quote from Benny Peiser, director of the GWPF. 

Peiser has been at the forefront of efforts to use Russia’s attack on Ukraine to demand more fossil fuel extraction. Before the invasion even began, he urged Prime Minister Boris Johnson to expand North Sea production, calling opponents of drilling “Putin’s useful green idiots”. 

Adam Barnett

Adam Barnett is a freelance journalist. He is a former Staff Writer at Left Foot Forward and BBC Local Democracy Reporter.

END ECOCIDE

Youth strikes worldwide demand climate action that centers ‘people not profit’

"The current system is widening the inequality gap—it has no place in our society."

By

 Jake Johnson

 -

March 26, 2022

SOURCECommon Dreams

From Dhaka, Bangladesh to Turin, Italy and beyond, youth climate strikers took to the streets across the globe Friday to demand that political leaders stop ignoring the scientific community’s deafening alarm bells and take action to slash carbon emissions before it’s too late.

“The current system is widening the inequality gap—it has no place in our society.”

Organized by the international Fridays For Future movement, the latest mass demonstrations stressed that worsening global class inequities and the climate emergency are deeply intertwined and must be tackled together—a message encapsulated in strikers’ rallying cry of “People Not Profit.”

“We live in a broken system, one where the richest 1% of the world population are responsible for more than twice the pollution as the poorest 50%,” Iris Zhan, campaign coordinator for Fridays For Future Digital, said in a statement. “That’s why we strike today to demand climate reparations to kickstart a transformative justice process in which political power returns to the people.”

As Fridays For Future organizers put it in their preview of the new global strikes, “Climate struggle is class struggle.”

On top of the in-person demonstrations worldwide, youth climate leaders on Friday also launched online campaigns urging ordinary people and political leaders to take three actions:

1. Endorse the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty: As the main driver of the climate crisis, fossil fuels are threatening our ability to protect livelihoods, security, and the planet.
2. Demand #PeopleNotProfit locally: Colonizers and capitalists are at the core of every system of oppression that has caused the climate crisis. We need people in every corner of the world to stand with local fights to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure and financing.
3. Support climate disaster relief: The most vulnerable bear the cost of the damages to homes and communities, as well as the incalculable tool on life, culture, and connection to land.

“The wealthier countries that have had the greatest impact on climate change need to provide the necessary funding and aid,” Chukwama Paul, communications lead for the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition, said Friday. “The estimated cost of loss and damage in developing countries will be 290 USD and 580 USD billion per year by 2030 and the current financial commitment to support developing countries is 100 billion USD annually.”

“We are amplifying the need for the redistribution of wealth to help victims of loss and damage,” said Paul.

The worldwide strikes come nearly a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report warning that the continued burning of fossil fuels is driving a “dangerous and widespread disruption in nature,” doing “irreversible” damage to marine and coastal ecosystems, and threatening the prospect of a livable planet for future generations.

“The facts are undeniable. This abdication of leadership is criminal,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in response to the report. “The world’s biggest polluters are guilty of arson of our only home.”

A separate analysis published earlier this week by the United Kingdom-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimated that rich countries must cut off their oil and gas production entirely by 2034 to give the world a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century.

The report emphasized that “an equitable transition will require wealthy high-emitting nations make substantial and ongoing financial transfers to poorer nations to facilitate their low-carbon development, against a backdrop of dangerous and increasing climate impacts.”

Farzana Faruk Jhumu, a climate activist with Fridays for Future in Bangladesh, wrote in an op-ed Friday that young people across the globe “are asking world leaders to put #PeopleNotProfit at the center of the planet’s future.”

“Bangladesh, where I am from, contributes to only 0.21% of global carbon emissions, but we are facing cyclones, floods, and droughts every year caused by global warming,” Jhumu continued. “To ensure justice for the Global South, world leaders must understand their responsibility. The current system is widening the inequality gap—it has no place in our society.”

#WATERISLIFE

50% of US lakes and rivers are too polluted for swimming, fishing, drinking

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) finds the country has fallen far short of the Clean Water Act's goal.

By

 Olivia Rosane

 -

March 30, 2022

SOURCEEcoWatch

Fifty years ago, the U.S. passed the Clean Water Act with the goal of ensuring  “fishable, swimmable” water across the U.S. by 1983. 

Now, a new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) finds the country has fallen far short of that goal. In fact, about half of the nation’s lakes and rivers are too polluted for swimming, fishing or drinking. 

“The Clean Water Act should be celebrated on its 50th birthday for making America’s waterways significantly cleaner,” EIP Executive Director Eric Schaeffer said in a press release announcing the report. “However, we need more funding, stronger enforcement, and better control of farm runoff to clean up waters that are still polluted after half a century. Let’s give EPA and states the tools they need to finish the job – we owe that much to our children and to future generations.”

The report was based on reports that states are required to submit under the Clean Water Act on the pollution levels of their rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries. According to the most recent reports, more than half of the lakes and rivers are considered “impaired,” meaning that they fall short of standards for fishing, swimming, aquatic life and drinking. 

Specifically, around 51 percent of rivers and streams and 55 percent of lake acres are considered impaired, The Hill reported. Further, 26 percent of estuary miles are also impaired. 

The Clean Water Act was a landmark legislative achievement when it was passed in 1972. It promised to end the discharge of all pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, according to the press release. However, it has fallen short of that goal for several reasons, according to the report. 

1. The act has strong controls for pollution pumped directly into waterways from factories or sewage plants but not for indirect pollution such as agricultural runoff from factory farms.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has dragged its feet in updating industry-specific technology-based limits for water pollution control systems. By 2022, two-thirds of these industry-specific limits had not been updated in more than 30 years.
3. Budget cuts have hampered the ability of the EPA and state agencies to enforce the law.
4. Permit requirements are poorly enforced.
5. Total Maximum Daily Loads, a kind of pollution control plan, are insufficient. 
6. There are problems effectively managing watersheds that cover two or more states. 

The report also broke down pollution by state. Indiana has the most miles of rivers and streams too impaired for swimming and recreation.

“Indiana’s waters have benefited from the Clean Water Act, but unfortunately, they also illustrate some of the gaps in the law,” Dr. Indra Frank, Environmental Health & Water Policy Director for the Hoosier Environmental Council, said in the press release. “We have seen persistent, unresolved impairments, especially for E coli bacteria in our rivers and streams, in part from industrial agricultural runoff.  And we have also seen examples of Clean Water Act permits used to send water contaminated with coal-ash into our rivers. We need to halt pollution like this.”

Florida, meanwhile, had the most lake acres impaired for swimming and aquatic life. 

“Florida’s toxic-algae crisis is the direct result of lax enforcement of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution limits in cleanup plans required by the Clean Water Act,” Friends of the Everglades Executive  Director Eve Samples said in the press release. “Because these limits rely on voluntary ‘best management practices’ and a presumption of compliance, agricultural polluters regularly exceed phosphorus runoff limits while dodging responsibility — leading to harmful algal blooms in Florida’s lakes, rivers, estuaries, and even on saltwater beaches.”

The report did propose several solutions that range from making sure that the EPA and other agencies carry out their duties under the existing law to strengthening the act with new legislation to control runoff pollution. 

This last is particularly important because agricultural runoff and other indirect pollution sources are the leading causes of waterway pollution. 

“Factory-style animal production has become an industry with a massive waste disposal problem and should be regulated like other large industries,” the study authors wrote. 

#WATERISLIFE

Khanna-Warren bill would ban Wall Street profiteering on water scarcity

"Water must be managed as a public resource, not a corporate profit center."

By

 Kenny Stancil

 -

March 23, 2022

SOURCECommon Dreams

Image Credit: Food and Water Watch

Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday introduced the Future of Water Act, which would prevent Wall Street from speculating on life-sustaining water resources in an attempt to profit from current and projected scarcity under fossil fuel-intensified drought conditions.

“Water must be managed as a public resource, not a corporate profit center.”

The congressional Democrats’ bicameral legislation would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to affirm that water is a human right to be managed for public benefit—not a commodity to be bought and sold by corporations and investment firms. The bill would also prohibit the trading of water rights on futures markets—a recently invented financial scheme widely condemned as “dystopian.”

“Every American should agree: Clean, drinkable water is one of our most basic human rights,” Khanna (Calif.) said in a statement. “Large companies and investors should not be allowed to use an essential public resource for their own gain. We have to stand together to protect our water.”

Warren (Mass.) added that “Wall Street shouldn’t be allowed to use this vital resource to make profits at the expense of hardworking Americans.” The newly unveiled bill, she said, would “protect water from Wall Street speculation and ensure one of our most essential resources isn’t auctioned off to the highest bidder.”

The Future of Water Act, which Khanna said would “prioritize human needs over corporate profits,” comes in response to ominous ecological and economic developments.

In December 2020, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) launched the world’s first water futures market, allowing hedge funds and other participants to claim quarterly contracts and bet on the price of 10 acre-feet of water in California—where more than 37 million people are currently facing drought conditions after enduring the driest year in more than a century—through 2022.

Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Water, warned in response that treating water “as gold, oil, and other commodities that are traded on Wall Street futures markets” rather than as a public good belonging to everyone demonstrates how “the value of water, as a basic human right, is now under threat.”

Three months ago—roughly one year after CME opened the world’s first market for water futures contracts—a coalition of more than 130 civil society groups delivered a petition urging federal regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to shut it down, as Common Dreams reported.

Warren and Khanna’s bill—endorsed by more than 260 progressive organizations, including Public Citizen, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the National Family Farm Coalition—would ban the practice for good in the U.S.

Food & Water Watch (FWW), which organized the December petition effort and supports the Future of Water Act, explained Tuesday that “Wall Street’s interest in financial derivatives based on water and water rights could lead to severe real-world water price spikes due to market manipulation and/or excessive speculation.”

According to the progressive advocacy group, “Large contract holders would have a strong incentive to manipulate the water futures market for profit.”

“Too much concentration in water markets by massive passive investors could lead to physical water hoarding and price increases,” added the group, but the “prohibition of water and water rights futures trading stops this dangerous speculation and protects American families and agricultural producers.”

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of FWW, stressed that “with the climate crisis delivering historically devastating droughts across the West, it is clearer than ever that water should be treated as a scarce, essential resource, not a commodity for Wall Street and financial speculators.”

“This groundbreaking legislation would put a lid on dangerous water futures trading before it creates a crisis,” said Hauter, “and it reinforces the fact that water must be managed as a public resource, not a corporate profit center.”

Although the U.N. acknowledged in 2010 that “clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights,” billions of people are around the world, including more than two million in the U.S., lack access to running water and basic plumbing.

Several House Democrats have co-sponsored the Future of Water Act, including Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), André Carson (Ind.), Chuy García (Ill.), Jahana Hayes (Ct.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Brenda Lawrence (Mich.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Andy Levin (Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).

Senate co-sponsors include Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Kenny Stancil

Kenny Stancil is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Largest American wind farm ever built all-at-once opens in Oklahoma, saves customers $1 billion over fossil fuel

Even in a gas and oil state, customers are saving a billion dollars by switching to wind.

By

 Juan Cole

 -

March 26, 2022

SOURCEInformed Comment

This week, American Electric Power (AEP), which operates in several states, inaugurated what it called the largest wind farm in the U.S. ever built all at once. That is, there are larger wind facilities, but they were actually a congeries of several projects built over many years.

The nearly 1 gigawatt Traverse Wind Energy Center, in Blaine and Custer counties in western Oklahoma, generates power not only for that state but also for Arkansas an Louisiana.

Mark Williams at the Columbus Dispatch writes, “Traverse has 356 turbines that are nearly 300 feet tall. Most of the blades go up to nearly 400 feet in height.”

He adds, “AEP says it is on track to have half of its generating capacity from renewable sources by 2030 and that it is on track to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80% from 2000 levels by 2050.”

AEP will get there in part by closing its sole remaining coal-fired plant in 2026. So we can see the realities on the ground, and the future does not belong to coal barons like Joe Manchin.

Wind farms accounted for 35 percent of Oklahoma’s electricity production before Traverse came online. The state has about 4 million residents and about a million and a half households.

The $2 billion Traverse wind farm and two smaller facilities will power 440,000 households, around 30 percent of all households in the state.

It is remarkable that so many large investments are being made in wind power in Oklahoma, since the state is known as an oil and gas giant. It accounts for 8.7% of the methane gas produced in the U.S. annually.

There is a difference, however, between fossil fuels and wind power. The fossil fuels are expensive, and wind has been dropping rapidly in price. Rhett Morgan at Tulsa World reports that the North Central Energy Facilities (NCEF) wind complex will save consumers $1 billion over the next 30 years.

Oklahoma ranked third in the nation for wind power before this addition.

The new wind farm, moreover, has “cold packs” allowing it to operate in freezing weather of the sort that hit Oklahoma and Texas in February of 2021. Despite the lies and propaganda of Texas governor Greg Abbott, the problems Texas had last year mainly derived from the failure of methane gas plants in the freezing weather, and most wind turbines worked fine. The Traverse facility will be even better, designed for operating even in such cold conditions.

It is estimated that if Oklahoma had already had the Traverse facility operating in February, 2021, it would have saved consumers $200 million.

The North Central Energy Facilities of which Traverse forms a part generate 1,484 megawatts of power. This makes them one of the biggest wind facilities in the country. They are not the very biggest, however.

USA By Numbers writes, “With a nameplate capacity of 1,550MW, Alta Wind Energy Center is by far the biggest wind farm in the US. It is located in Tehachapi Pass, Kern County, California and occupies a total area of 130 square kilometers. Alta was established in 2010 and had a construction cost of over $2.8 billion.”

So there you have it. Even in a gas and oil state, customers are saving a billion dollars by switching to wind. That is the future, my friend. As for the gas and petroleum, most of it will become worthless and will stay in the ground as wind and solar costs continue to plummet.

Juan Cole

https://www.juancole.com/

Juan Cole (born October 23, 1952) is an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East and South Asia. He is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Since 2002, he has written a weblog, Informed Comment (juancole.com) which is also syndicated on Truthdig.com.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Big Oil Should Pay Windfall Tax to Offset Pain at the Pump

There’s a word for this sort of action to restrict an essential supply like energy during a crisis: profiteering. 

And when it's done in a coordinated way? That's called racketeering.


The gas price sign at a Chevron gas station in West Linn, Oregon. Oil and gas prices are soaring due to Russia's war in Ukraine and price-gouging by the fossil fuel industry. (Photo: hapabapa/iStock/Getty Images)

JAMIE HENN

March 30, 2022

There’s one group of people who aren’t worried about high gas prices this month: Big Oil executives.

While millions of Americans are cursing the price at the pump or struggling to pay their home heating bills, oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP are raking in massive windfalls. Industry profits had already surged to $174 billion in 2021 due to high prices, and while the first quarter numbers of this year have yet to come in, they are likely to be astronomical.

While millions of Americans are cursing the price at the pump or struggling to pay their home heating bills, oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP are raking in massive windfalls.

“We have more cash than we know what to do with,” Murray Auchincloss, the Chief Financial Officer of BP bragged back in February—and that was before the war in Ukraine drove prices even higher.

What Big Oil is doing with all its cash is rewarding its wealthy investors and billionaire CEOs. Oil companies are on track to spend a near-record $38 billion this year on stock buybacks to reward their shareholders. Oil company CEOs are stuffing their bank accounts too: since Russia began threatening Ukraine and prices began to skyrocket, just 5 CEOs cashed out nearly $99 million worth of their company stock.

Lining their own pockets at the expense of American consumers has been the oil industry’s plan ever since the economy started coming out of its Covid-19 induced recession. A series of recordings from corporate shareholder calls and industry conferences executives admitting that they are intentionally restricting supply in order to boost their share price.



This is what’s helping drive up prices for consumers: an intentional, industry-wide campaign to make massive profits at our expense. The economic bounceback from Covid-19 and embargo on Russian oil created the conditions for this perfect storm, but it's the industry’s malfeasance which has kept prices high. Rather than do everything they can to help the public, the oil companies have put their own profits first.

There’s a word for this sort of action to restrict an essential supply like energy during a crisis: profiteering. And another word when it's done in a coordinated way: racketeering. Both are illegal.

Whether or not oil companies can be held accountable in the courts, they ought to be made to pay a price. New legislation recently introduced in Congress would do just that. The idea is called a windfall profits tax and in this case, it would apply a 50% tax to the excess profits that the industry is making right now. The revenue raised—which could be upwards of $40 billion a year—would then be used to send a check to Americans who need help with high gas prices and energy bills. Taxpayers below the $70,000 a year income threshold could expect to receive around $240 based on current prices.

The real solution to escaping all the price volatility, insecurity and pollution that comes with fossil fuels is a rapid transition to clean, renewable energy.

That may not be a lot of money to a billionaire CEO, but it could mean the difference between being able to pay the bills or going deeper into debt for many families. It’s been heartbreaking to see stories on TV of mothers who are having to cancel their child’s birthday party because they have to spend the money on gasoline. These checks could help provide some immediate relief and help carry people over until prices go down.

Oil companies and their allies in Congress and the media will argue that this sort of tax is just punishing industry success, will restrict supply, and will just be passed off to consumers. All those arguments are false. The massive profits companies are making right now are from exploiting multiple crises, not from any innovation of their own. As for restricting supply, the industry has more than enough capital and leases on our public lands to drill new wells – as BP said, they have more cash than they know what to do with. And the idea they’d pass the cost off to consumers? The tax would only apply to the largest oil producers who don’t have enough market share to control the price at the pump without being undercut by other suppliers. Besides, the companies will still be making billions in profits, just not the absolutely obscene windfalls they’re making now.

The real solution to escaping all the price volatility, insecurity and pollution that comes with fossil fuels is a rapid transition to clean, renewable energy so that we’re no longer dependent on greedy CEOs and tyrants like Vladimir Putin. But in the meantime, a windfall profits tax can provide some immediate relief to consumers and send Big Oil a message: you can no longer get away with profiting at the expense of the American people.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jamie Henn is the director of Fossil Free Media and a co-founder of 350.org

Sanders introduces legislation to impose a 95 percent windfall tax on excess profits of major companies

"The time has come for Congress to work for working families and demand that large, profitable corporations make a little bit less money and pay their fair share of taxes.”

By

 Ashley Curtin

 -

March 27, 2022

SOURCENationofChange

Image Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

First implemented by the United States during the first and second World Wars and the Korean War, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ legislation models the tax rate that reached 95 percent in WWII to ensure that companies could not profiteer off the war. The legislation, which was introduced in the Senate on Friday, would impose a 95 percent windfall tax on the excess profits of major companies.

The temporary emergency measure, which is part of Sanders’ Ending Corporate Greed Act, “could raise an estimated $400 billion in one year from 30 of the largest corporations alone and would apply only in 2022, 2023, and 2024,” according to a press release. Sanders said it will combat rising inequality, inflation, and corporate profiteering.

“We cannot allow big oil companies and other large, profitable corporations to continue to use the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the specter of inflation to make obscene profits by price gouging Americans at the gas pump, the grocery store, or any other sector of our economy,” Sanders said.” During these troubling times, the working class cannot bear the brunt of this economic crisis, while corporate CEOs, wealthy shareholders, and the billionaire class make out like bandits.”

According to Bernie Sanders: U.S. Senator for Vermont website, the Ending Corporate Greed Act would:

• Maintain the existing 21 percent corporate tax on a company’s profit equal to or less than pre-pandemic levels.
• Establish a 95 percent windfall profits tax on a company’s profits that are in excess of their average profit level from 2015-2019, adjusted for inflation.
• Apply only to large companies with $500 million or more in revenue annually.
• Be limited to 75 percent of income in the current year.
• Be a temporary emergency measure, applying only in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

While the 95 percent windfall profits tax is on profit, not revenue, “companies would still be able to make a reasonable profit compared to previous years,” according to a press release. Companies who raise prices for “legitimate reasons” such as rising expense won’t be affected by the legislation, but companies that are in pursuit of “profiteering” would be subject to a tax of up to 95 percent on their windfall profits.

“The American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented corporate greed that exists all over this country,” Sanders said. “They are sick and tired of being ripped-off by corporations making record-breaking profits while working families are forced to pay outrageously high prices for gas, rent, food, and prescription drugs.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is cosponsoring the legislation in the Senate, while Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) will introduce joint legislation in the House of Representatives.

“The time has come for Congress to work for working families and demand that large, profitable corporations make a little bit less money and pay their fair share of taxes,” Sanders said.

To read the full bill text, click here.

Ashley Curtin

Ashley is an editor, social media content manager and writer at NationofChange. Before joining NoC, she was a features reporter at The Daily Breeze – a local newspaper in Southern California – writing a variety of stories on current topics including politics, the economy, human rights, the environment and the arts. Ashley is a transplant from the East Coast calling Los Angeles home.